Posts Tagged constitution

Good Idea, Bad Idea

If the country wants to infringe on the citizen’s right — not just the citizens who have been perfect, but also citizens who have done wrong — to keep and carry arms, then we should amend the constitution. As it stands now, an accurate reading of the second amendment clearly forbids infringement by the government on the citizen’s right to keep and carry. Yes, sophist (and often ridiculous) reasoning has resulted in a wide variety of constitutionally unauthorized legislation along the lines many are suggesting, but again, as these laws are in fact unauthorized, there is no salient reason — outside of fear of unauthorized, coercive violence on the part of the government — for any citizen to respect them, much less obey them.

I am not — repeat, not — in favor of the second amendment as it stands today. But I am even less in favor of allowing or encouraging the government to ignore the constitution under any circumstances. That has led directly to torture; complete inversion of the commerce clause; surveillance, search and seizure without a warrant or even probable cause; repression of speech; direct government support and fostering of religion; ex post facto law; de facto double jeopardy; the taking of land for commercial purposes; and much, much more along the same lines.
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Analyzing the 2nd Amendment Correctly

rippedThe 2nd Amendment is in the news again. As I come across various news stories and blog posts like this one, I repeatedly find attempts to present an explanation of this portion of the constitution. Some of these attempts err because they use modern definitions for terms that meant something else when the amendment was written; some fail because they don’t catch on to the difference between an instruction to government and an explanation to the reader; some are outright propaganda, written to conform to a point of view without regard to any intent to get at an accurate reading.

I’ve spent quite a lot of time looking at this over the years. Although you may begin to feel as you read this that I am pro-gun, in fact I am not. What I am is pro-constitution. As you’ll see if you read this completely, the constitution provides for change, and the obvious path is, if you want change, you should make that change — properly. Please read this to the end before you decide that I’ve got a foot in the door here, for or against the “rightness” of American citizens being armed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , ,

The Constitution is not just a piece of paper

rippedObama (and let’s be fair here — also the congress, and the judiciary, and state officials) has repeatedly demonstrated either a complete disrespect for, or absolute misunderstanding of, the constitution.

From the inversion of the commerce clause, ex post facto laws at both the federal and state levels, sweeping usurpation of article 5 powers via the judiciary, to blatant violations of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 14th amendments, our government is — at best — operating in an unauthorized fashion, wielding powers it was never granted by the people, and ignoring its obligation to protect the rights it was explicitly charged with protecting in return for being allowed to operate at all.
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

SCOTUS empowers another ex post facto law

rippedThe Supreme Court ruled on May 17th, 2010, that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates after their prison terms are complete. The high court in a 7-2 judgment reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority.

Ex post facto laws are explicitly forbidden to the federal government and the states by two separate and quite specific clauses in the constitution, the government’s authorizing document:

The federal government: “Section 9 – Limits on Congress – No … ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

The states: “Section 10 – Powers prohibited of States – No State shall … pass any … ex post facto Law”

You may be asking, “What is an ex post facto law?” The legal definition is given by Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase, which defines four ways laws must fail as ex being post facto:
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Let's talk Commerce Clause

One of the higher profile judicial injuries done to the constitution is the Supreme Court’s commerce clause scam. The commerce clause of the US constitution simply says that congress is authorized the power to regulate interstate commerce. Interstate means between the states. It’s always meant that.

But the Supreme Court has trashed the actual meaning and replaced it with the following: They now have the power to regulate any commerce, anywhere, including when it transpires entirely within a single state, on the premise that something could be used for interstate commerce.

Here’s what they mean by that, and why the commerce clause is now 100% applied as authority to use power to regulate “intrastate commerce”, the exact opposite of the constitution’s intent.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Well, that didn't take long.

President Obama has publicly sided with the Bush administration on the question of whether the President should be allowed to establish warrantless wiretapping programs designed to monitor US citizens.

The fourth amendment is very clear on this. Obama should be very clear on this, as he has claimed the hat of a constitutional law professor.

So here we go, sliding yet further downhill, and it only took two days.


Tags: , ,

Enjoy the Fireworks

Upon exiting the constitutional convention, Benjamin Franklin was approached by a lady who asked “What kind of government have you given us?” Franklin answered “A republic, madam… if you can keep it.”

Considering the feeble effective remnants of the constitution today, I’m afraid that Franklin’s cautionary remark has come home to roost.

When you see those fireworks today, consider what we could have had, were it not for sophists, powermongers, and politicians “interpreting” the constitution until much of it became meaningless.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Why the Heller 2nd amendment decision should scare you

The USSC did the right thing. Just barely. Mostly by accident. I say this because while it is clear that the four judges (of nine total) who dissented haven’t even got a ghost of a clue as to what the constitution is, much less what it says, there is more here to astonish and perturb those who actually read the decision of the majority of five. They don’t know what they’re doing either; that, or they are involved in a conspiracy against the citizens of the United States.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,