"It's all cut and paste"

A lovely critique, in a way, but I have another quote:

"Copying from one person is plagiarism, two research".

Both quotes simplify the issue. What is lacking from them is that mere parroting without understanding shows ignorance. One can quote and then come up with a point, well, that's research. It's showing understanding and backing up your point that takes it from mere "cut and paste".

And as they say "There's nothing new under the sun." So, why should I "reinvent the wheel". Christ, I don't have that much spare time (despite how this may seem).

Commonplace books (or commonplaces) were a way to compile knowledge, usually by writing information into books. They became significant in Early Modern Europe.

"Commonplace" is a translation of the Latin term locus communis which means "a theme or argument of general application", such as a statement of proverbial wisdom. In this original sense, commonplace books were collections of such sayings, such as John Milton's commonplace book. Scholars have expanded this usage to include any manuscript that collects material along a common theme by an individual. Thomas Jefferson had a common place book where he would jot down ideas he thought were important

Such books were essentially scrapbooks filled with items of every kind: medical recipes, quotes, letters, poems, tables of weights and measures, proverbs, prayers, legal formulas. Commonplaces were used by readers, writers, students, and humanists as an aid for remembering useful concepts or facts they had learned. Each commonplace book was unique to its creator's particular interests.

A funny aside, there was this young woman who kept a common place book during the 18th Century (or therabouts), she died and everyone thought she was a genius. Until someone pointed out that was her common place book that she copied the thoughts of others. Never mind her tomb shows her as this literary genius. I'll put up the info when I locate it. Until then, this will remain an anecdote.

Interestingly enough, Commonplaces are likened to blogs (another good post here). Which is exactly where I am going with this.

I will be the first to admit that law isn't the most intellectual of professions (which gets me into another quote I want from C.G. Jung about the medical profession not being very intelectural either--I think it's in dreams). In fact, one could easily set up a computer program that could make legal decisions thus eliminating judges.

Anyway, I hope that my rantings prove useful. They are a way for me to vent. I am feeling particularly frustrated by the Heller decision as my many posts show. It is flawed in its logic, which some people see. Yet for reasons I will get into in future posts, we mostly see praise for this piece of trash called Heller.

The politics of Beer.

I am pleased to see Field Negro attack Obama on his choice of Beer. Although, I think there were better choices of beer than Red Stripe. I mean just because the beer comes from Jamaica does not make it black. In fact, Red Stripe is owned by Diageo plc, and you can learn more about them from their webpage.

Anyway, Are you saying there aren't any decent black microbrews in the USA? What a shame. This is a business opportunity for some enterprising young black American!

It's neat to think about this anecdote: One morning, two youngsters came upon each other in the offices of West Indies Mineral and Table Water Company in Kingston, Jamaica. "My name is Thomas Hargreaves Geddes," said the newcomer. The other smiled. "Glad to make your acquaintance! I've been here a bit. I'm Eugene Desnoes." And thus, Desnoes and Geddes (the original brewers of Red Stripe) was born.

So, sorry, FN, but I thought the Red Stripe choice was sort of stereotypical on Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Junior's part. Not that I dislike Red Stripe, but it's sort of like going for a Bud if you're a white guy (or worse--Coors). Not that it's bad, but just not very deep from someone who is a professor at Haahhvaad.

There are African and Caribbean beers the distinguished prof and prez could have quaffed. Here is another blogger's run down on the choices

Red Stripe
One of Jamaica’s most famous exports, Red Stripe lager is produced by Desnoes and Geddes Limited, a prominent Jamaican beverage company that, until it was bought out in the 1990s, also produced soft drinks and local versions of Guinness and Heineken. Red Stripe is now owned by Diageo Holdings, which also owns Guinness, Captain Morgan, Smirnoff, Johnie Walker, and other famous brands. It’s an exotic brand run by a very Western company, but it tastes a heck of a lot better than Bud Light.

I would have picked something from the Carib brewing company if I were the prof. Carib is still a West Indian company, whereas D&G is part of a conglomerate.

Here is the low down on the prez's choice from the same source

Bud Light
People are saying Jesse Jackson’s son owns a distributorship in Chicago, so Obama’s choice is political. I think he just wants to watch his figure. Bud Light is the perfect drink for a moderate: It doesn’t have as many calories as regular beer, but it still counts as beer.

I have to admit that I am really ticked that Whitbreads is history and Youngs has taken over British Brewing (despite the fact that I still use my Young's Bitter umbrella after 20 years). Smaller is better in terms of beer!

Born to run things

I had to admit that there were a few possible titles to this post, such as "Sure I am an elitist", "Define Sheeple", "critical thinking on the internet", and so forth. But if you have actually read this blog, you have figured out that I am from the "ruling class". You know, the elite, the people who run your life.

I find it interesting to see how people are described as "sheeple", especially in the context of the "Second Amendment debate". Even more so when I look at the wikipedia entry:

Sheeple is a term of disparagement, in which people are likened to sheep.

It is often used to denote persons who voluntarily acquiesce to a perceived authority, or suggestion without sufficient research to understand fully the scope of the ramifications involved in that decision, and thus undermine their own human individuality or in other cases give up certain rights. The implication of sheeple is that as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by a perceived authority figure believed to be trustworthy, without processing it or doing adequate research to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them.

Sorry, I don't fit the picture of "sheeple" in any way. Maybe "sheeple herder", but not "sheeple".

Nevermind that I am a believer in the "collective right" and will always be as it is the historically accurate interpretation. The "individual right" camp has done a wonderful job of twisting the truth, yet I am amazed at who is willing to believe it. Yes, there are lawyers who actually believe that the Second Amendment includes self-defence: despite the fact that they would rip holes if it were the opposite opinion claiming that there was a right that didn't exist (e.g. abortion).

No, this is not because I was told this was the correct interpretation, but because I actually looked at the source material, which I frequently cite for you to examine as well. It is the only interpretation that makes sense as well.

Unless you truly believe criminals have the right to firearms ownership.

Additionally, I am amazed that there is such blatant running of the Heller by the Special Interest think tank, the Cato Institute. And guess what, the Cato Institute has ties to Rupert Murdoch. In case you missed it, Murdoch owns quite a large media conglomerate: News Group. News Corp owns the Wall Street Journal.

As the bumper sticker says: "the media are as liberal as the large, conservative companies that own them."

And there is a reason that "conservatives" dislike National Public Radio and want to cut funding: they would have no control over a publicly funded organisation. But fortunately, nearly 30 years of "conservative" governments in the US have left public broadcasting with almost no funding.

What is left? You find that the media, and even the internet, are filled with right wing posts and a predominance of right wing information. You have to sift to find anything useful.

You are told that Heller "finds" an individual right, but guess what? That right seems more and more nebulous if you scrutinise it.

For example:

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. Heller p. 54

This has a footnote, 26, which states:

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only
as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Don't forget footnote 23 as well!

23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation,
a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also
said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did
not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by
our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252,
265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed
that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

What does that leave you with? Nothing?

But it is an "individual" right!

As Justice Stvens said:

The question presented by this case is not whether the
Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be
enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second
Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us
anything about the scope of that right.

The Civic right, Collective right, or whatever you want to call it means that the Second Amendment only protects the "right to keep and bear arms" as part of the militia, that is the body organised under article I, section 8. All the quotes from the adoption deal with partition of power between the two governments:

To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of "appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, while concurrently, Congress has power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry you into endless absurdity— that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, and so on, and that the state governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another light.

May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, and so forth and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?

See my How will your militia be armed? Post.

Funny, but Patrick Henry doesn't mention self defence in that piece I just quoted. But, you can stop being sheeple and actually do some cite and fact checking for yourself. I mean, did you catch that was a quote famous quote from Patrick Henry?

So, I find it amazing that people think that the Bilderbergers work in secret. See how many people have missed that they have been played by the DC v. Heller nonsense.

The Bilderbergers could post their agenda on the front page of the New York Times and most people would miss it.

Who you calling "sheeple"?

I like this...

Media Declares "Victory" For Gun Rights As Second Amendment Is Systematically Destroyed
DC handgun ban case poses grave threat to constitutional rights

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Comments made by justices in an ongoing landmark case, which seeks to address the very meaning of the second amendment, have been heralded as a "victory" for the individual right to bear arms, but in reality the Second Amendment is being completely eroded altogether.

Funny, but when people deconstruct and think about this decision, it shows up for being the POS it is.

Of course, most people don't think about it.

Now, another theme which is beginning to come out of this blog is that the media is controlled by those in power. Finding accurate and useful information can be a real task. In fact, critical thinking skills are highly important for the internet age as information can be duplicated and repeated. Certain viewpoints are given prominance. Yet few people actually think for themselves and have the critical thinking tools to do so.

Think tanks, such as the Cato Institute (which ran the DC v. Heller case), control the ideas presented. Dissenting points of view are minimised or called wrong.

As someone with very unpopular political views, views that go against the ruling elite such as distaste for Zionism (the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland), the Second Amendment Scholarship, rampant military power, wedge issues, the sham political system, and so forth, I know that there are people who are paid to harass bloggers with unpopular opinions in order to silence them. This is the reason I don't take comments or messages.

These special interest groups can get away with this because they are not under public scrutiny. In fact, they operate openly.

I am amazed at the amount of people who talk about the Bilderbergers, CFR, Trilateral Commission and so forth, yet miss that the DC v. Heller case was bankrolled by a special interest group: the Cato Institute. Not only that, Levy boasts about using the legal system rather than legislation to further his agenda. Yet few red lights are blinking in people's heads.

Messages like the one I started this post with are not the ones most people talk about. They talk about how the Supreme Court affirmed "the individual right", whatever that is.

I am amazed that people like that can call me and people like me "sheeple".

As I keep saying, be afraid, be very afraid.

The Failure of the Second Amendment

The Failure of the Second Amendment
by Manuel Lora
Exclusive to STR
January 4, 2008

(It is not the purpose of this article to promote violence.)

Gun rights advocates often point out that the purpose of having access to firearms is not just to keep the occasional thief of murderer at bay but also to be used as a check on government. The idea is that an armed citizenry can and would scare off the state in case it became too tyrannical.

The problem with the view that “guns will keep us free” is that if the majority of the population does not want freedom, then no amount of private gun ownership will make a difference. Indeed, this is what is happening today in the United States. There are millions of firearms in private hands yet the government continues to violate more rights as it grows ever more powerful.

Gun ownership has, however, served its purpose. There are thousands of defensive gun uses and many lives have been saved because of them. Burglars, for example, have to think about the possibility of the homeowner being armed and willing to use a 12-gauge to defend life and property.

But use of privately owned guns against ordinary (“private”) criminals is just part of the equation. Why is it that throughout the history of the United States, given the availability of guns, the government has not grown smaller and smaller? By now we should be the freest people on the planet!

The answer has to do with ideology. When most of society is composed of people who support state actions, then nothing will change even if they themselves own firearms. It is not an exaggeration to say that more than 99% of people are socialist. They are socialist to the degree that they implicitly or explicitly support any and all government programs. If you support universal healthcare, you are a medicinal socialist; if you love the government military, you are a defense socialist; and if you want sanctions, tariffs, subsidies, taxes, licenses and regulations, you are a plain old Red.

Since these ideologies all coexist in the same society, it is rarely ever possible to find even one issue that everyone can agree on. And because it’s so difficult to find that one issue, when people are prosecuted for non-crimes (such as tax evasion or drug entrepreneurship), there is nothing remotely close to a consensus and therefore the “criminal” will be seen as a menace to society. There will be no one major group of people who will oppose the multitude of ways the state oppresses us. This is the reason why an armed society is totally useless. Government worship, statolatry, rules.

Gun ownership by itself is in the long term incapable of changing the power of the government. What society needs are intellectual weapons instead. There is nothing more disarming than the desire to be free. Opposition and resistance by millions is worth more than a few armed rebels. The role of the armed rebels is important, of course, but they can only thrive when the majority of the population supports the ideals of liberty, otherwise they would themselves be seen as criminals.

It seems that the U.S. is going to continue becoming more despotic, both domestically and internationally, at least for a few more decades. What’s ironic is that this nation will have hundreds of millions of slaves and those slaves will be heavily armed with hundreds of millions of firearms, yet they will choose to continue to be slaves. What a shame.

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

By Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

From Liberty Forum

Laci in court--proof

Opposing counsel with Laci in the Court Hallway!

You'll have to wait for a pic of her in a courtroom, but that will be forthcoming!

Opposing counsel's face is obscured at her request, but, trust me, this picture is rather notorious in the jurisdiction it was taken.

From Conspiracy Theories to Cable News

Bilderbergers and Cato--think tanks take action in Norwegian election.

As seen in Endgame, the leader of the Norwegian “Progress party” (Fremskrittspartiet, FrP), Siv Jensen, attended the Bilderberg meeting in 2006.

This received some attention by Norwegian mainstream media.

Then in 2008 the Norwegian mainstream media reported that Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation will help FrP to win the 2009 election, making Siv Jensen the Prime Minister of Norway.

Here she called herself the new “iron lady”, the new Maggie Thatcher of Norway. And she is very confident that she will become the next Prime Minister…

And of course, one of the things her party is working for, is to sell out all the natural resources in Norway, privatizing the heritage meant for future generations.

Heller--Be very afraid!

I find it interesting that people who find conspiracies everywhere and worry about institutions such as the Council for Foreign Relations and the Bilderbergers have missed one very scary point about DC. v. Heller.

Heller was bankrollled by a conservative think tank.

Robert A. Levy is a chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute and the organizer and financier behind District of Columbia v. Heller.

In 2002, Levy began recruiting plaintiffs for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit against the District of Columbia. Although Levy has never owned a gun himself, he was interested in the issue as a constitutional scholar and believer in individual rights. He teamed up with Clark M. Neily III of the Institute for Justice and began finding and vetting District residents who had a legitimate and appealing reason for wanting a gun for self defense at home. They eventually settled on six residents: Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller. They tried to select a diverse group, and ended with men and women, black and white, and a variety of income levels. Levy only knew Palmer, a colleague at Cato, and none of the six knew each other before the case.

The lawsuit was initially filed in 2003 as Parker v. District of Columbia. After several reversals and appeals, the case was heard by the Supreme Court on March 18, 2008. The court trashed the previous precedent of US. v. Miller and came out with the new theory that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership. Levy released a statement saying "Heller is merely the opening salvo in a series of litigations that will ultimately resolve what weapons and persons can be regulated and what restrictions are permissible. But because of Thursday’s decision, the prospects for reviving the original meaning of the Second Amendment are now substantially brighter."

Levy financed the lawsuit and served as a co-counsel. As a result of his involvement in the case, Levy has been profiled by The New York Times and The Washington Post.

No big secret there, in fact Levy is incredibly boastful about his plan to litigate rather than legislate.

Now, we groups such as the Bilderbergs whose objective is to dress totalitarian corporate ideology up to appear rational and push it out, unattributable, for mass consumption under Chatham House rules. Meanwhile, outside the Bilder-bubble, 'god-is-money' globalisation is the new religon with the greedy given a pat on the back as they plunder both the earth and a large part of the human spirit.

Be very worried because the political agendy of these think tanks is far from open and is very similar to the Bilderbergs.

Concern about the rising political activity of these think tanks is accentuated not only because they adhere to an extreme right wing economic orthodoxy, but also because they have found well-heeled allies in the corporate sphere who are prepared to fund advocacy activities as part of their own corporate political strategy. As evidence presented in this report indicates, it is very difficult to obtain precise information about these corporate funding strategies, as neither the corporations, nor the think tanks are obliged to disclose comprehensive data about their financial activities. This secrecy enables corporations to play a double game of nurturing a public image of corporate social responsibility while at the same time funding think tanks that fight social, consumer protection and environmental legislation across the board. Furthermore, in principle, think tanks are not expected to engage in direct lobbying on specific legislation. However, research by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) shows that in practice the line between their activities and lobbying is blurred.

While the perspectives of neoclassical think tanks, such as such as the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, or Fraser Institute, play a role in liberal-democratic processes as part of a rich mixture of ideas, they also contribute to the erosion of democracy if they come to dominate the public consciousness. Their domination forces the polity too far to the right side of the democratic model when inadequate ideological balance exists.

Now, everyone is talking about how 5 judges sanctioned the popular myth about the Second Amendment dealing with self-defence, which is something that does not stand scrutiny. Even more importantly, the Judges of the supreme court have changed the law without democratic process.

I mean, if you want the Second Amendment to deal with self-defence, then you go through the process of amending the constitution.

But Levy did a wonderful job of by-passing the democratic process and abusing the legal system. Strangely enough, but Scalia has warned about by-passing the political arena and going to the Court system to set political agendas.

I keep pointing out that the Second Amendment was meant to protect us against a runaway military budget, but how often does the issue of standing armies come up in relation to the Second Amendment? No, it has become a personal right and the rise of this personal right has coincided with the rise of the military-industrial establishment.

Any wonder that the Heller decision comes during an illegal war and as we are seeing governments going bankrupt?

I don't have the time to research this, but I have noticed that the talk about the institution of the militia has diminished to be replaced with talk of self-defence. Scalia wipes out the first half of the Second Amendment to make the Second Amendment all about self-defence.

Just as the military budget goes out of control.

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.

Joseph Story Commentary on the Second Amendment

Any right you have from DC v. Heller is illusory. It will be taken from you.

A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes, and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures. An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power.

Military interference with civilian government is hardly an obsolete concern. Military coups have overthrown democratically elected governments on every continent, and within the memory of anyone alive today who bothered to notice. In many countries where the standing army doesn't flaunt its political power, the military continues to pull the strings of puppet civilian officials. But these embarrassments have received little attention in the popular media and public education, creating a complacent citizenry unaware of just how rare and fragile the freedoms they take for granted are from a historical perspective. We're told instead that the American standing army is somehow different from every other standing army down through history, and couldn't possibly pose a threat to our constitutionally limited form of government or our liberty as citizens.

But even more frightening...

Suppose you are a Republican politician with deep-seated hostility toward the Federal government. You find that certain government programs, including some very big programs, such as Social Security, politically untouchable. Nevertheless, you’d like to put an end to everything that is big government, including Social Security (though you’d never say this publicly).

What do you do?

Why not make reckless, irresponsible “tax cuts” (really tax delays) that leave a big chunk of the government funded by deficit spending? Do this year after year, building up a budget deficit so large that a big part of yearly tax collections go to merely pay interest on the debt. Publicly proclaim you have given Americans a “tax cut” as the government heads toward bankruptcy.

And what happens when the government goes so deeply in debt that it can’t function? For our right-wing friends, this is fine: there is very little that the government does of which they approve. “Crippled government is a good government” seems to be their instinctive belief.

A bankrupt government is a scary thought. What about the next time we are forced to go to war, and we have to send troops who are woefully ill equipped? We saw what happened when George Bush thought the war in Iraq could be a low budget affair; our troops died in unarmored vehicles due to attempts to keep costs down. This will happen again in future, inevitable military conflicts.

And those of us who don’t have the five million dollars that the "conservatives" believe is the dividing line between rich and middle class expect to survive in retirement partly on income from Social Security. If the government can’t uphold its promise to provide Social Security, lots of us are in serious trouble. Republicans who hate big government may bring an end to Social Security, one of the biggest government programs ever. And they’ll do it without ever winning over the electorate to their views.

The trillion dollar federal deficit is not simply some accidental happening out of politicians’ control. Republican presidents, from Ronald Reagan to George Bush, have deliberately foisted a “borrow and spend” policy knowing they are driving the government to bankruptcy, and not caring what the consequences are for the rest of us.

Maybe someone can dig deeper into this, but I find Heller very worrying in the trends that are coming from these think tanks with an agenda of destroying freedom.

Wow! I just met a fan!

It seems that American Red Tory is a fan of mine.

I am chuffed!

Another insult from an RKBA person

You're a pseudo-intellectual.

Yeah, well you're a real fuckwit.

In defence of Jeffrey Toobin

Some people are surprised that Jeffrey Toobin pointed out that:

“You know, it’s funny, the way that this hearing goes, you would think that Supreme Court precedent is some unchanging thing- that is just the law that is changed. But if you look at the Second Amendment, that’s something that’s changed dramatically over the last- for 50 years, including when I was in law school, which was more recently than 50 years ago- the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous. The text of the Second Amendment, I believe we have it- we have it in our system- you know, speaks of a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms.”

I am not surprised. What most people who haven't attended law school don't realise about the "New Scholarship" surrounding the Second Amendment is that it is indeed very recent. You could count the scholarly legal writings about the Second Amendment when I went to law school on one hand!

The civic right was the accepted legal belief.

I asked my conlaw prof why we didn't study the Second Amendment and his response was "if you think things were bad (emotionally) when we studied Roe v. Wade. they get even more heated when discussing the Second Amendment." because the Civic right was the accepted legal precedent.

Roe and Heller

Very little of the criticism this page receives addresses the most valid point of criticism which is how can I be upset about DC v. Heller, but not Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)?

There is a simple non-legal answer which is that the most blatant form of tyranny is when a government interferes with a woman's personal choice to have a child. This is a matter between a woman, her doctor, and her significant other with no place for government interference.

I am amazed at how many people want "gun rights" and freedom from government interference, yet balk at abortion. Also, it is amazing that people can call themselves "pro-life", yet have no problem with shooting and killing someone. Or even capital punishment.

I mentioned use-benefit analysis in another post and personally, I find abortion to be far more of a right to be protected than some illusory "gun right".

That said, I have several legal grounds to dislike Heller.

The first is that it is poorly written and does not stand scrutiny. Anyone who has read my posts can see that there are multiple lines of attack of this POS written by a committee.

Secondly, Scalia has had to violate everything he claims to believe in regarding judicial practise. The most egregious of these being that Scalia's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) acknowledged that abortion rights are of "great importance to many women", but asserted that it is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, because the Constitution does not mention it!

In fact, reading Planned Parenthood v. Casey makes me even more curious as to how Scalia could deign to find a right of self-defence in the Second Amendment.

Scalia does everything that he expresses disgust in in his Planned Parenthood dissent.

The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the "concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Ibid. Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected--because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.

Roe v. Wade on the other hand, has some legal basis to support it. The Supreme Court rested its conclusions in Roe on a previously recognized constitutional right to privacy emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Blackmun said that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

I am of the school that the decision is correct, but for the wrong reason. The First Amendment States that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I extend this right to include exercising personal beliefs concerning the beginning of life. The morality of abortion is grounded in the precise belief of the nature of the fetus in Christianity, Judaism, Humanism as well as other religions and ethical systems,. There is a general consensus that when the foetus becomes a human person, then abortions should be severely limited. The question is when does life begin? But that is an ethical decision. Most would confine abortions at the stage when the foetus is viable to situations that threaten the life of the pregnant woman; a very few would eliminate access to abortions totally. The problem that generates so much controversy is that no consensus exists in society over the point, between conception and birth, when personhood begins.

Jewish beliefs and practice concerning abortion do not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
--The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only."
--Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
--Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
--With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
--"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law."

Islam allows for abortion in cases where the mother's life is threatened.

Additionally, while the "right to an abortion" may not be specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is a personal choice relating to health, personal finances, beliefs and other issues that government has no right to intrude upon.

As I said in my use-benefit analysis post, there are some things which are beneficial to society, of which prevention of unwanted children is one.

At this point, I have to reiterate another point I have made in my posts, that the Heller decision did not invalidate gun control laws. The problem is that Scalia did not give any idea of the scope of his new right.

The problem is that there are loads of knee-jerk RKBA people out there who follow rather than think. They are told that there is an individual right enshrined in this decision and then say this is about time. They do not analyse what has been written or think about the implications.

Next post in this series, Wedge issues.

Funny Second Amendment Quotes

The second amendment does not mention self-defense. This is no more than a play on words. Why then would a person have the right to arm themselves? For show and tell? Another Liberal spin to fit their own agenda.

Q: Why then would a person have the right to arm themselves?

How about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" being the reason why.

Are those words mere surplusage? (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803)) Are they there for "show and tell"? Are they "just window dressing"?

Sorry, it's not a liberal spin, but a perfectly sound legal interpretation, as well as a very conservative opinion. This is in opposition to popular misconceptions held by the public. The popular misconception has been granted official sanction by, of all people, Antonin Scalia. To justify this interpretation, Scalia has had to violate every principle he claims to believe in (see my posts tagged Scalia)

I see it (the term self-defense) in the words of the Second Amendment

Then, I suggest you pull out your braille edition and get a better feel of the text --because it ain't there!

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.

Your hallucinations aside, chum, the phrase "self-defence" does not exist in the words of the Second Amendment.

Of course, people who don't mind finding words in laws where they don't exist end up with no legal system.

Fear the Reaper

Μολὼν λάβε?

Εντάξει, με ευχαρίστηση!

Don't understand this? Well, then don't go around using words you don't understand!









OK, since most septics don't understand Greek (or English for that matter).

Molon labe (over my dead body)
OK, With pleasure!

How will your militia be armed? (or still more Heller critique)

Like a magician, or other illusionist, Scalia diverts your attention from the real focus of the Second Amendment.

JUSTICE STEVENS relies on the drafting history of the
Second Amendment—the various proposals in the state
conventions and the debates in Congress. It is dubious to
rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely
understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to
fashion a new one. But even assuming that this legislative
history is relevant, JUSTICE STEVENS flatly misreads
the historical record.

Heller at p. 30

The problem is that all the quotes from the drafting history of the Second Amendment show that the concern was not a "pre-existing right" of self-defence by individuals (states yes, individuals NO). In fact, since the right is the created by the Second Amendment, that is the right which needs to be discussed. We are discussing the US constitution and the bill of rights in LEGAL sense, not popular misconceptions of that right. Also, Blackstone totally contradicts the pre-existing right of armed self-defence argument (see linked post).

Scalia spent all of Heller trying to diminsh the focus of the Second Amendment from the Militia. The problem was that the Second Amendment was specifically drafted to ensure that the Militia would be armed and that institution remain vibrant. Hence Patrick Henry's comment that was frequently used by the "RKBA" crowd.

that every man be armed

The text of the Constitutional debates surrounding the Second Amendment can be found here and here.

Self-defence was not at issue during these debates. In fact, Patrick Henry is discussing Article I, Section 8 in the record and the fact that the Federal government might not arm the militia. In fact, the full Henry quote reiterates the Article I, Section 8 language in the complete quote (see highlighted text).

May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed.

More of this quote is as follows.

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution (3 Elliot's Debates 384-7)
Virginia, Saturday, June 14, 1788.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html


Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition have to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I was heard to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were the two great instruments of government; and I professed great repugnance at parting with the purse, without any control, to the proposed system of government. And now, when we proceed in this formidable compact, and come to the national defence, the sword, I am persuaded we ought to be still more cautious and circumspect; for I feel still more reluctance to surrender this most valuable of rights.
As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of "appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, &c., concurrently, Congress has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry you into endless absurdity— that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, &c., and that the state governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another light.
May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties, and when you speak of arming the militia by aconcurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.
The argument of my honorable friend was, that rulers might tyrannize. The answer he received was, that they will not. In saying that they would not, he admitted they might. In this great, this essential part of the Constitution, if you are safe, it is not from the Constitution, but from the virtues of the men in government. If gentlemen are willing to trust themselves and posterity to so slender and improbable a chance, they have greater strength of nerves than I have.

Like the Second Amendment and the Constitution, there is no mention of the concept of self-defence. The debates are published and anyone who cares to review than can do so. I really don't have the time or inclination to do so here.

Scalia gives short shrift to the actual ratification debates of the States and relies on quotes which are not contemporaneous with the adoption of the bill of rights because he doesn't want fact to ruin the fiction he has created with his new right. This right did not exist in connection to the Second Amendment until he put it on paper last year.

If anything, the quotes that Scalia uses show that his argument is without merit as the concept of self-defence may have been considered, but was not worthy of being mentioned in the Second Amendment. As I say, where are the words "self-defence" in the Constitution?

On the other hand, it is ridiculous to say that the Second Amendment enshrines a pre-existing right of armed self-defence. This right has never existed in common law, or in US Constitutional law prior to Scalia's pronouncement.

Immediate interpretation was by the Militia Act of Militia Act of 1792 providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia which was passed 2 May 1792 by the Second Congress (Session I. Chapter XXVIII).

Scalia gives a lovely illusion, but it doesn't stand close scrutiny like any other illusion.

Or to quote the man:

“What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship
of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely
indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be
grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what
prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that—
thumbs up or thumbs down—as their personal preferences
dictate. Today’s opinion forthrightly (or actually,
somewhat less than forthrightly) admits that it does not
rest upon consistently applied principle.”

I hate to end this with a question, but what exactly is Scalia's judicial philosophy?

Yet another critique of Scalia's argument in Heller.

Scalia's use of state constitutional provisions is unconvincing from a legal standpoint. State constitutions often grant individuals more protection than do analogous provisions of the federal Constitution. States also protect individual rights which are nowhere to be found in the US constutition.

For example, some states hold that their residents have an "expectation of privacy" in their garbage, meaning that the government must have probable cause to search garbage. Some states hold that traffic "check lanes," where entire lanes of drivers are stopped and checked by the police, are unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court has held that the Federal Constitution does not recognize an expectation of privacy in garbage, and that traffic check lanes are constitutionally permissible.

States can only add to your Federal constitutional rights -- they cannot pass constitutional amendments that restrict the rights you receive under the Federal Constitution.

A state court's interpretation of the state constitution can differ from an interpretation of an overlapping federally protected right. The variance may arise from a number of circumstances, including textual differences, different legislative histories, and disagreement among courts about the correct interpretation of constitutional language. For some, independent state interpretation of state bills of rights has the benefit of allowing states to be laboratories of experimentation for new or different legal doctrines. Moreover, a state court may be better able to provide stability and clarity of law than a distant federal court.

The problem here is that Scalia used differently worded State constitutional guarantees to try to interpret the US constition. These differently worded provisions only act to obfuscate the proper inquiry.

Another no-no, but Scalia was coming up with his new right.

The problem is that there already was a unanimous decision in US v. Miller that provided this guidance to the interpretation of the Second Amendment:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

The obvious answer here is that Scalia had a new interpretation which was without legal basis or preedent that he wanted to justify.

From the Catholic Church...

A Shameful Supreme Court Decision

The US Supreme Court has declared the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns to be unconstitutional as it violates the so called individual “right to bear arms”. We need to unpack this. The Catholic perspective is to start with Aquinas, who viewed law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community”. The Enlightenment era gave us another view of the law, predicated on the notion of individual liberty as the foundation of society. In other words, the person has to right to do as they wish in search of personal fulfilment, as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of another. Law is then all about the enforcement of social contracts.

It would be erroneous not to credit the Enlightenment with its achievements. Too often, rulers abused the notion of “common good” (if they even bothered to seek a rationale) to trample upon human rights and human dignity. In re-discovering and liberating this essential Catholic teaching, we must be grateful to “Enlightenment values”. But we cannot go too far, for the underlying anthropology is false. It is used to support laissez-faire liberalism, based on the notion that market exchange is a “free” exchange that reflects natural differences in the various actors. This approach as been condemned vociferously by the Church from Pope Leo XIII onwards, for the Church looks at these issues through the lens of the common good, the way Aquinas viewed the law. The ethic of private liberty has led directly to gay marriage, where the goal is simply the satisfaction of personal desires as opposed to the common good which would emphasize the bearing and rearing of children. And of course abortion is justified in this manner: the “right to privacy” is paramount, and the unborn simply cannot be active participants in a social contract.

This is a rather lengthy introduction, but, I believe, an essential one. For the right to bear arms that the Supreme Court upheld today comes directly from this notion of personal liberty trumping the common good. For the authorities charged with the common good in DC, an area suffering from extremely high gun-related violence, felt that a ban on handguns was appropriate. Of course, this ban can have limited effect absent border controls at the Potomac river. But is this a valid argument for inaction? To use that logic, the ability to travel means that no laws restricting abortion should be enacted either.

At this stage, it is useful to see what the Church teaches on this matter. Here are some statements from the USCCB:

“Since such a significant number of violent offenses are committed with handguns and within families, we believe that handguns need to be effectively controlled and eventually eliminated from our society. We acknowledge that controlling the possession of handguns will not eliminate gun violence, but we believe it is an indispensable element of any serious or rational approach to the problem….

We believe that only prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession and use of handguns (with reasonable exceptions made for the police military, security guards and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions) will provide a comprehensive response to handgun violence.”

That is quite clear. We need a national ban on handguns. I would like the many Catholics who are cheering this ruling to explain why they so gleefully go against the bishops on this one. For this ruling really pits the two alternative approaches to law against each other. Do we go with personal liberty, which includes the right to own handguns for self-defense? Or do we go with the common good, in an atmosphere of out-of-control gun death? I stand with the Church on this one, and deem the Supreme Court decision quite shameful, rooted as it is in the kind of reasoning that gave us Roe v. Wade and gay marriage.

Scalia’s history lesson is also misplaced. First, he appeals very much to the Enlightenment-era philosophy that was prevalent when the constitution was written. Just because the “founders” believed it does not believe it is right. And anyway, as I noted, you can draw a direct line from this position to Roe v. Wade. Second, he forgets that public policy geared to the common good differs by age. A simple example: it would not be possible to achieve universal health care during the middle ages, so there is no duty to try. You know where I am going with this. Scalia’s attempts to freeze-frame jurisprudence in the late-18th century is quite at odds with the notion of law promoting the common good. Then again, his is a sola-scriptura approach to textual analysis.

FInally, the empirical question. Let me point out for a start that the rest of the developed world views the United States as extreme and insane in its approach to guns. When gun homicide and suicide rates are off the charts, the American defenders to the pseudo-right shrug their shoulders and claim that banning guns would not solve anything. It’s just that, well, the United States is just more violent than elsewhere. Nonsense on stilts.

According to the extensive research of David Hemenway from Harvard’s School of Public Health, the US is actually not that exceptionally violent, at least among other high-income, industrialized nations. Crimes like assault, car theft, burglary, robbery, and sexual incidents are not particularly high by OECD standards. What differs about the US is “lethal violence”. So while guns don’t induce people to commit crimes, they make crimes lethal. The international evidence is beyond dispute: the availability of guns leads to greater rates of homicide and suicide, and no offset in terms of lower non-gun murders. We are talking here about a primary component of the culture of death.

I’ve even tried to do a simple empirical study on this blog, looking at cross-country gun ownership and homicide rates. I found that gun ownership rate are positively and significantly related to homicide and suicide rates across 19 advanced economies, and that a bevy of other factors — GDP per capita, demographics, ethnic divisions, urbanization and inequality– did not seem to matter on their own. It’s the guns, stupid! What causes gun deaths is the availability of guns. Score one for Occam’s razor. I did a little further analysis, to see if the availability of guns enhanced the underlying factors that might cause violence. It does. Introducing a non-linear element in the regression suggests that gun ownership is especially detrimental when ethnic divisions and inequality are elevated. Does that sound like any country you know?

The other argument often touted in that many gun-owning communities are inherently peaceful, and that the problems are localized to a few inner-city areas. Even if that were true, what happened to the notion of solidarity? What happened to the common good? Ah, I forgot, individual liberty matters more. Silly me.

More words to Ponder....

“[T]here is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states.”

­Antoin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (1997)

Well, I guess that DC is a colony and not a state. No vote, no power.

Words to ponder

One major theme of this site is that the US Constitution is dying, as is the United States itself, if not actually dead. Here we see a first-tier legal scholar support this theory. “The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead.” has become Justice Scalia’s best known saying, perhaps his signature line. I recommend attention to his warnings.

Antonin Scalia, Vigilante Justices: The Dying Constitution

If the courts are free to write the Constitution anew, they will write it the way the majority wants; the appointment and confirmation process will see to that. This, of course, is the end of the Bill of Rights, whose meaning will be committed to the very body it was meant to protect against: the majority.

He should listen to what he says.

Scalia’s logic used in Heller would lead him to endorse the outcome of Roe, a decision which he condemns on the grounds that the “Constitution says nothing about abortion.” Well, it also says nothing about a right to keeping handguns for self defense– so which is it? Indeed, the partisanship of Justices can sometimes be quite appalling, and just as Scalia is willing to violate his own principles as a means to a right-wing end in the Heller case, so too might a majority left-leaning court be willing to adopt an “textualist” position for the purpose of overthrowing Heller.

A Constitution in FULL Crisis

I don't necessarily agree with this, but I do share his sentiments.

A Constitution in FULL Crisis
By JB Williams Thursday, July 23, 2009

America’s extreme left tricked American moderates into supporting their candidate last November by campaigning on post-partisan cooperation and transparency in government. Six months after the election of a freshman senator with a blank résumé, a laundry list of evil associates and a life more secret than your average CIA agent, Obama’s entire history remains a mystery and his administration is the most hardcore partisan dictatorship ever experienced in the USA.

Washington DC partisanship has turned into outright Obama-Pelosi dictatorship. The so-called “Commander-in-Chief” is fast losing control of his military, which is increasingly and viciously divided between those who are refusing to take orders from an overt enemy of the Constitution, and those who foolishly defend Obama’s right to destroy that which they took an oath to protect and preserve.

Obama should have ended the divisions over his ineligibility long before it reached the ranks of American fighting forces. He chose not to, and instead to allow the issue to fester into a powder keg that even Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod are ill-prepared to extinguish.

The US Constitution is in FULL Crisis

The US Constitution is the contract between the people and their respective states, and the federal government established by it. The document was written to form a representative republic limited in power and scope to the matters and authority delegated and ratified in the Constitution. That contract has been breached by a runaway Fed…

Decades of outright destruction of the Constitution have left the nation on the brink of economic, political and social collapse. The 2006 and 2008 election cycles placed the Constitution in full crisis and the people are growing increasingly desperate for a peaceful means to restore their Constitutional Republic.

An administration which does not meet constitutional standards is expected to protect and defend a contract which it does not even recognize, much less respect. The contract either stands, or it doesn’t. Based on the 2008 election, and every policy put in place since, the contract does not stand at present. If the Constitution no longer stands, then the federal government which it established, no longer stands in authority. Tyranny reigns…

The States Take Action

Ignored by federal public servants and cut off from any access to peaceful means of redress in congress or the courts, the people and their states are forced to take matters into their own hands.

A “constitutional” interpretation of the Constitution is in order, as the people begin to demand that a runaway Fed blatantly acting against the best interest of its people, return to a constitutional foundation, or risk being stripped of all power and abolished.

The federal government is the product of the Constitution, the contract between the people and their states which established and assigned specific limited powers to the federal government, which is to serve at the pleasure of the states and the people.

If the Constitution no longer stands, then there is NO federal government. The federal government exists only as a result of the Constitution. A very real crisis is at hand…

As a result, more than 32 states are rushing to pass Tenth Amendment legislation intended to remind the federal government of this reality. But the Obama regime is not listening.

Many of those states are also passing Second Amendment protections for their citizens, making it illegal for the Fed to threaten private gun rights, even in cases of “Martial Law.” But the Fed has rejected all such state bills, claiming that “federal laws supersede state laws.” (editorial comment: I support these people's rights to carry weapons in cases of martial law, and the consequence of being shot for doing just that).

Reacting to an “unconstitutional” letter from Obama’s ATF, which puts Tennessee on notice that the Fed will not recognize laws passed by the individual states under Tenth Amendment rights, Tennessee State Rep. Matthew Hill points out, --“Montana, Tennessee and all others, are SOVEREIGN states not subservient to the federal government. The Fed can send us letters all day long and it doesn’t change the fact that we are allowed to govern ourselves, under the 10th amendment of the US Constitution.”

A “constitutional” interpretation of the Constitution

All constitutional text must be read within the context of Amendment Ten… which clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Does the Constitution delegate the power to “confiscate and redistribute private wealth” to the federal government?

Does it delegate power to force “Cap and Trade” or so-called “Universal Health Care” upon the people and the states?

Does it delegate the power over private industry, such as banking, auto manufacturing, energy and the likes? – Or the power to disarm American citizens under any set of circumstances, real or imaginary?

No such powers were delegated to the federal government under the US Constitution. Unlike many ill-informed US citizens, Obama & Co. knows it. But they don’t care…

Since no clause exists in the Constitution which specifically assigns any of these powers to the Fed, Amendment Ten applies… “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
The Second Amendment Example

Each clause of the Constitution must be read within the context of the Tenth Amendment. Power and authority is either specifically delegated to the Fed in the text of the Constitution, specifically withheld from the Fed by way of the Bill of Rights, or in the absence of any such reference to power and authority, the Tenth Amendment applies.

In the case of gun rights, the Founders specifically denied the Fed any power via the Bill of Rights, specifically prohibiting the Fed from playing around with the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

“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.” –

Yet, operating in direct contradiction to this Second Amendment language, the federal government has assumed a power not assigned to it by the states, to regulate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. A case of the people’s past silence, being intentionally misinterpreted as their consent, which allowed the fed to step across boundaries it is specifically prohibited from crossing in the Bill of Rights.

As a result, the states have been forced to restate their border sovereignty and state rights in new state sponsored legislation, including Second Amendment protections for their citizens who wish to keep and bear arms, whether anti-second amendment leftists in Washington DC like it or not.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

My home state of Tennessee passed both Tenth Amendment and Second Amendment legislation, supported in such number as to override our Democrat governor’s attempts to veto.

But Obama’s Fed responded by issuing a letter, under his Justice Department headed by Obama buddy Eric Holder, on the letterhead of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms signed by Assistant Director Carson Carroll, advising the state that “federal laws supersede states laws.”

Like hell they do!

The states DO NOT serve at the pleasure of the Fed. The Fed exists and serves at the pleasure of the states, a FACT that most states seem in a rush to point out to Obamanation.

The US Constitution supersedes both state and federal laws. Don’t confuse the US Constitution with federal laws, passed by congress or passed by judicial fiat via the courts. Federal laws take precedent over state laws ONLY in matters specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. If no such authority is assigned to the Fed, then no such power exists at the Fed.

When the federal government makes laws pertaining to matters NOT assigned to it under the US Constitution, which it has had a habit of doing for decades now, both in congress and in the judicial branch, the states are in NO WAY bound by those laws. Those laws are by definition, unconstitutional, no matter how they were passed.

As the Second Amendment makes it quite clear that the federal government has NO power to regulate the people’s right to keep and bear arms, and the Tenth Amendment clearly states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”- Obama’s Fed, Justice Department and ATF, have NO constitutional authority over the states in the matter…

Tennessee State Rep. Matthew Hill is exactly right. They (the Fed) can send threatening letters all day long and those letters are completely irrelevant, as they are at odds with the Constitution. The ATF letter relates to federal laws written on matters NOT assigned to the federal government to begin with, matters therefore reserved to the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment.

Even the overly politicized US Supreme Court has recently defended Second and Tenth Amendment rights in its related rulings.

The Question of Enforcement

Clearly, Obama and Co. think they won the right to run roughshod over the states and the people last fall. If our Founders had given us a pure democracy, they would be right. But in a Constitutional Representative Republic, they are dead wrong!

Still, it’s also clear that they intend to force their will upon the masses, regardless of public or state dissent, or constitutional limitations. The “silent majority” has been silent for so long, that modern leftist think that they are now the new majority, free to run roughshod over the new “silent minority.”

Under this fantasy, they proclaim the right to ram their leftist agenda down everyone else’s throat. “We won - you lost—so shut up and take it!”… is the general sentiment displayed by O-bots on message boards across the blogosphere…

That sentiment has now reached within the ranks of the US Military, where a growing number of soldiers are beginning to challenge Obama’s right to issue orders and Obama minions are publicly attacking them with a vengeance. The heated chatter got so vicious on Military.com last week, that the publication removed ALL comments on the subject from its web site before the discussion could spin out of control.

Active duty soldiers are refusing Obama orders. Reservists are refusing recall and deployment orders. Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick has filed criminal “treason” charges against Obama. Flight Surgeon, Lt. Col. Dr. David Earl-Graeff has sent a letter to Sec. of Defense Gates, stating the following…

“Enough is enough! You must be aware at this point of the tempest brewing among the Rank and File. I am writing you in an effort to appeal to your sense of concern for the Military; a concern we share not only for the Military as a whole but for each and every individual who wears the Uniform in the Service of our Country. I am in this regard specifically asking you for your help. I implore you to not wait until the “pot boils over” and we find ourselves in total disarray. –

I am convinced, beyond any doubt, that the moral well being and efficiency of our fighting forces to defend our Country is soon to be hanging in a precarious balance if not already. In my humble estimation this is NOT a theoretical possibility to construct a thesis or a contingency plan about. It is a reality and is happening right now. Resolution of this issue must be accomplished in the most expeditious manner available at your disposal to gain immediate relief to those of us who are struggling to fully comply with our sworn Oath to the Constitution while being conflicted by questions relating to the qualifications of the POTUS to hold the office in full and absolute compliance with the Natural Born Citizen Clause.”

So, how does Obama plan to enforce his global vision upon the masses when the US Constitution which provides for a federal government, delegates no such authority and an increasing number of soldiers and law enforcement are taking a stand against a “potential domestic enemy” in an effort to uphold their oath to protect and defend the US Constitution?
Once Silent running out of Tolerance

Convinced that the Constitution is under constant threat from within today, Americans normally happy to avoid the subject of politics altogether are building a head of steam to thwart the current constitutional crisis. They are erecting lines of defense at the state borders before Obama can capitalize on one of his many manufactured disasters by removing the people’s right to stand opposed.

His Department of Homeland Security has already redefined “domestic terrorist” to include anyone who disagrees with Obama. His minions have already labeled anyone concerned with the Constitution, “birthers,” in a childish name-calling effort to silence the dissent. His left-wing press has affixed the title of “racist” to anyone who dare doubt Obama’s anti-American Marxist agenda, or his mystery messiah status.

Pelosi has made certain that Republicans have no voice in congress and Holder has made certain that the people will not find a legal forum to resolve Obama’s overt agenda or hidden past in any court.

Growing increasingly desperate to restore the Constitution and fast running out of peaceful means of doing so, the people find themselves in a very real Constitutional Crisis.
Peacefully Forcing the Fed to Reverse Course

With a tone deaf Fed, the people are turning to their state legislators and the states are moving to close down the Fed. Led by the Tenth Amendment Center, state legislators are rushing to reclaim freedom and liberty on behalf of their citizens.


* Step One – Tenth Amendment Affirmation

* Step Two – Second Amendment Affirmation

* Step Three – Kicking the Fed out of the States

* Step Four – Shutting down the Fed by cutting off 97% of Fed funding by repeal of the 16th Amendment

* Step Five – Repeal of the 17th Amendment, removing every current member of the senate and sending new representatives of states right to establish a new constitutional senate.

* Step Six – cleaning house in Washington DC and establishing a constitutional limited government which will once again serve at the pleasure and benefit of the states and the people

Unlike drug rehab, it doesn’t take twelve steps to reinstate a constitutional Fed, although it could take a twelve step program to break many modern Democrats addiction to free-stuff from the public trough.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...”

If the people fail to quickly alter a Fed run wild, via their state legislatures, they will be left with no option but to abolish and start over from scratch.

Republicans in Washington DC have either lost their way or lost their nerve. As a result, they have lost all power.

But Republicans, Independents and even Blue Dog Democrats across the nation in state legislatures, are acting in defense of their citizens and the Constitution, and the people MUST take a stand with those state legislators, immediately.

Visit the Tenth Amendment Center for an up-to-date picture of where your state stands in the march to reclaim states rights and reign in the runaway Fed.

Contact your state legislators and get behind their efforts to affirm state sovereignty and rights. Even Obama does not have the power to force his will upon fifty states who stand united and opposed!

Bye, Bye US, Your demise will not be too soon.

Justice Antonin Scalia is ignorant!

I just wanted to say it loud and clear. Maybe he will see it.

The grounds for this is that he has chosen to ignore prior precedent from US. V. Miller in his DC v. Heller decision. Scalia was bound by precedent which he chose to ignore.

Perhaps the Court’s approach to the text is acceptable advocacy, but it is surely an unusual approach for judges to follow.

Justice Steven is polite, but I will use these terms since they are legal terms.

ignorance XIII. — (O)F. — L. ignōrantia, f. prp. of ignōrāre not to know, misunderstand, disregard, rel. to ignārus unaware; see -ANCE.
So ignorant XIV. ignore †not to know XVII; (of a grand jury) reject (a bill); refuse to take notice of XIX. — (O)F. ignorer or L. ignōrāre.

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

This is especially true for someone who purports to be a high court judge.

And I hope he bloody sues me because I want to hear his explanation as to why he ignored this:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Using foreign law sources as precedent

In common law legal systems, a precedent, or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body utilizes when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. There are two forms of precedent: Binding precedent and Persuasive precedent.

Binding precedent relies on the legal principle of stare decisis. A stare decisis means to stand by things decided. It ensures certainty and consistency in the application of law. Existing binding precedents from past cases are applied in principle to new situations by analogy.

Precedent that is not mandatory but which is useful or relevant is known as persuasive precedent (persuasive authority or advisory precedent). Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, State courts versus Federal courts in the United States), and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.

In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through the adoption of the persuasive precedent by a higher court.

Foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent or to bind an outcome of a legal decision interpreting the Constitution except in extremely exceptional circumstances. That would be that the court had no precedent.

Courts should ban the citation of persuasive precedent from outside their jurisdiction, with two exceptions:

(1) cases where the foreign jurisdiction's law is the subject of the case, or
(2) instances where a litigant intends to ask the highest court of the jurisdiction to overturn binding precedent, and therefore needs to cite persuasive precedent to demonstrate a trend in other jurisdictions.

It is interesting that Scalia has been a vocal opponent of the practice of using foreign law sources as precedent. I guess he does whatever justifies his conclusion. Even if that means an incorrect application of the law, his supposed beliefs on judicial interpretation, or whatever else can be used to make a justification for his conclusion.

Was he trained by Jesuits?

The problem is that if one chooses to use a foreign source to enlighten a legal decision, then one must also see how the other jurisdiction has applied this source.

Where I am going with this is that I believe that the use of Blackstone implies that there is no relevant precedent in the US jurisdiction that will illuminate our understanding of the Second Amendment. This is, of course, wrong, but it is the assumption that Scalia takes.

You see there are articles out there which say that the holding would have been different if Scalia properly gave deference to Blackstone's method of legal interpretation. Especially since Blackstone knews about these forms of precedent and would have said that US v Miller was binding precedent.

But, Scalia is ignorant of the binding authority of prior precedent thus believing that there is no Second Amendment jurisprudence whatsoever.

Taking this as his point of view, he has chosen the English Bill of Rights and Blackstone as persuasive authority.

But, he shouldn't have limited himself there. He should have seen how other Common Law jurisdictions have applied the relevant text and the law of self-defence. That is the proper method for using persuasive authority: see how have other courts applied the law in question.

I mean, aren't British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and so forth Courts familiar with their law?

The problem is that Scalia glommed onto a phrase, a concept, but again shows his ignorance. He doesn't care what the other jurisdictions do with the law, he wants to justify his own untenable position.

The problem is that this also flies in his face as anyone familiar with firearms laws in other Common law jurisdictions knows. There is no right to a firearm.

Likewise, self-defence: Self-defence in English law is a complete defence to all levels of assault and can't be used to mitigate liability, say, from murder to manslaughter where a soldier or police officer acting in the course of his duty uses a greater degree of force than necessary for self-defence (compare the situation in some of the Australian states in Self-defence). Hence, self-defence is distinguishable from provocation which only applies to mitigate what would otherwise have been murder to manslaughter (i.e. provocation is not a complete defence).

Because of the completeness of the defence, Self-defence is interpreted in a relatively conservative way to avoid creating too generous a standard of justification. The more forgiving a defence, the greater the incentive for a cynical defendant to exploit it when planning the use of violence or in explaining matters after the event. Thus, although the jury in self-defence cases are entitled to take into account the physical characteristics of the defendant, that evidence has little probative value in deciding whether excessive force was actually used. The general common law principle is stated in Beckford v R (1988) 1 AC 130:

"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."

Opinions can differ on what is a reasonable amount of force, but one thing is certain. The defendant does not have the right to decide how much force it is reasonable to use because the defendant would always believe he or she was acting reasonably and would never be guilty of any offence. It is for the jury, as ordinary members of the community, to decide the amount of force which would be reasonable to use in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from an imminent attack and might not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including his or her beliefs as to the surrounding circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for any mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. The classic test comes from the Jamaican case of Palmer v The Queen, on appeal to the Privy Council in 1971:

"The defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. ...Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. ...It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have [to] avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence... If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."

How does that work in practise?

Tony Martin, a middle-aged farmer, was awakened one night by the sounds of burglars breaking into his isolated farmhouse in Norfolk, England. Fearing for his life, because he lived alone on his remote farm more than 30 minutes away from the nearest police station, Mr. Martin relied upon his shotgun for his safety. He fired on the burglars, killing one, and wounding a second.

Doesn't that Sound like a clear case of self-defence?

Sorry, but Tony Martin was sentenced to life in a British prison. On appeal, his sentence was later reduced to five years in prison. The government is so set against citizens using firearms to defend themselves that now it is fighting Martin’s early release from prison. Even though he’s been a model prisoner, government lawyers claim he represents a “threat to society.” Why? Because he refuses to admit he did anything wrong in defending his life and his property. Believe it or not, the government even argues burglars need to be protected from the people they attempt to rob.

The government is not completely without a heart, however. The wounded robber was granted £5,000 to assist him in suing Martin for damages. The robber, who has multiple convictions and has never held a steady job, claims that his injuries keep him from working.

Not an aberation: there is also Padraig Nally in Ireland.

Using examples such as those, Scalia should have found that not only was DC's law Constitutional--it didn't go far enough.