In June, 2020, the US Supreme Court ruled against Bruen in NYSRPA v. Bruen and upheld Dobbs in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. In so doing, it left half of Americans outraged. I undertake to explain why Americans are bound to accept these decisions. I will not explain why they were the “right” decisions. Instead, my thesis is that they were decided according to the rule of law.
Our Constitution begins with the enigmatic phrase: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” What could these words “a more perfect Union” mean? A better way for Americans to govern themselves; an aspiration toward what the founding generation thought of as “more perfect”. That is what the Constitution was all about. Bruen and Dobbs were correct decisions because they conformed to this system, not because of any substantive merit in the arguments of the parties.
Our system is founded on: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution ratified in 1788, the Bill of Rights, subsequent amendments, and, Marbury v Madison. We might have adopted a much different system; and, indeed, we did. The first attempt at constituting the United States of America was set out in the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781. It was imperfect, an abysmal failure witnessed by its replacement in 1788. Its substance might be reduced to the following: ‘We the Several States agree to do whatever we feel like, from time to time.’ Not much to go on to establish the rule of law, not of men. It was hardly better than anarchy among the 13 states.
What might we do as an alternative? Revert to a largely unwritten constitution as prevails in the United Kingdom? Revert to the Articles of Confederation? Pursue the French system of reconstituting a central government from time to time? All these options are available to us should We the People so ordain via Article V of our Constitution of 1788. But we will not do so. And so, here we are. Our system is that which we have adopted, ratified, and systematized. It is either that system, or politics “by other means”. Successions of civll wars, with all the chaos that is implied. We know better. And we must acknowledge that fact.
Bruen was correctly decided simply because McDonald “incorporated” the 2A upon the states. McDonald was correctly decided simply because the 14th Amendment so commanded that the states not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”. The right to keep and bear arms was secured against infringement by the 2A. That such is the supreme law of the land was established by the Constitution of 1788. These are the indisputable facts of the matter irrespective of the objective merits of an armed citizenry.
Dobbs was correctly decided simply because no right to abortion is to be found anywhere in the text of the aforementioned documents. Abortion is not an “enumerated” right. I hasten to add that I do not dismiss any argument that abortion is an unenumerated right. I wholeheartedly believe in the doctrine of unenumerated rights. But how do unenumerated rights liquidate themselves? To whom does a plaintiff appeal for enforcement of any unenumerated right? May an expatriate or illegal alien expect a court to respect his natural right to arms? Clearly not. Neither can persuade a judge to recognize his membership in the class “the People”. These two defendants have a natural right but no enumerated right that any US court will honor. Again, these are the indisputable facts of such matters irrespective of the objective merits of any natural right to abortion or self-defense.
So who, if anyone, has the power to regulate abortion? SCOTUS, per Dobbs, could find no such power in Congress. If not Congress, then who? That answer is given to us in the 10A: “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.” Indisputably, that power to regulate abortion – should it exist at all – is “reserved to the states”. That cumbersome phrase: “The powers not delegated . . . nor prohibited . . .” is succinctly referred to as “the police power” and it encompasses public safety, public health, and morals. Abortion falls squarely in the latter two categories. Mississippi has the power to regulate abortion.
We have a system. And, that system has resolved the questions raised in Bruen and Dobbs. And, if we are to adhere to the rule of law, these SCOTUS decisions settle the matters decided. We are all bound by the social compact to respect these decisions until SCOTUS reconsiders the matters; or, alternatively, 38 state legislatures ratify a new amendment to the Federal Constitution.
What, my fellow Americans, is the alternative? Politics by other means?
If the foregoing is soundly reasoned, where do these ideas lead? I hold that we are all duty bound by the social compact to strive faithfully to apply the tools of this system to resolve all other disputes. This system includes hard-and-fast rules such as, for example, the four-year Presidential term or the Electoral College. Congress and the 50 state legislatures have very little leeway to alter these institutions without a new amendment. Other provisions, such as the Commerce Clause leave a great deal more leeway. What, exactly is within vs outside “interstate commerce”? And this – the Commerce Clause – is at the root of countless disputes. (There are others, such as “navigable waters”.)
If we are to live in harmony with one another it behooves us to respect the sentiments of the ratifiers of the Constitution of 1788, and the ratifiers of subsequent amendments, such as, e.g., the 10th and 14th. If we faithfully so adhered, we could resolve our disputes more swiftly and with less rancor. Imagine all the strife we might have avoided from the end of Reconstruction to the end of the Civil Rights movement had only we upheld the intentions of the ratifiers of the 14A. Imagine all the strife we might have avoided in the War on Drugs had only we respected the states’ right to regulate medicines and drugs not entering into interstate commerce. The racist war on Black people and Nixon’s war on his political opponents were preventable.
All because we failed to adhere to our principle of a rule of law, not of men. Rule of law is our system under the aforementioned documents. We the People must first respect this system if we are to hold our elected officials and appointed judges and magistrates accountable.
In June 2020? Wow, how time does fly! I could have sworn it was only a month or so ago.
My error, not Dan’s. Sorry about that.
You know I just had to! 😉
“May an expatriate or illegal alien expect a court to respect his natural right to arms? Clearly not. Neither can persuade a judge to recognize his membership in the class “the People”.“
Interesting position, that may not actually conform with legal fact:
“10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard“
The relevant text is:
“who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States“
Any person who reaches the border of the United States and requests asylum and citizenship is a member of the militia, and receives the protection of the enumerated right of the second amendment.
Turns out, people are ‘People’.
No, MajorStupidity, “people AREN’T People”.
I know you Leftist/fascists want open borders (because illegal aliens will vote for your s***ass candidates in exchange for “free shit”), but “declaring your intention” to become a citizen means diddly squat. It MAY meet DoD requirements to enlist (it actually varies by service/MOS), but it gets you nothing as a civilian. Current immigration laws do give those who have successfully served in the US military preferences in immigration status. Still doesn’t mean you get to ignore the process.
But we understand, you Leftist/fascists only honor “laws” when they serve your purposes. It’s ALL about the outcome, never about what the actual law is – whatever supports your desired outcome, or supports the narrative.
If it weren’t for double standards, you wouldn’t have any at all.
I’m open to your argument. However, I’m doubtful that it would fly in court. Most likely, the DoJ would put its efforts into prosecuting an illegal alien who attempted to assert this argument. The illegal immigrant would have no money. No pro bono lawyer would be interested in this case.
Everything facing Caetano would face this illegal immigrant. And so, I think he would fail. He would not find whatever support Caetano enjoyed.
You can’t make the same argument for the case of an individual who was once a citizen (or green card holder) who renounced his citizenship (or GC).
The significant point I’ve raised here is that there is a distinction to be made between natural rights and enumerated rights.
If we supposed that the 2A might be repealed we would assert our natural rights. We would resort to politics by other means. We would pray that history would vindicate our disloyalty to the so-amended Constitution just as history vindicated American Revolutionaries.
But we must pray fervently that it never comes to this. Instead, we must argue that all of us, Progressives and Constitutionalists alike, agree that we will respect the social order. Progressives must respect Bruen and Dobbs.
And we must respect SCOTUS decisions we don’t believe were correctly decided.
And, we must use the political tools available to us to dissent. Among these are Nullification and resistance to Federal mandates. (Another essay is percolating)
MINOR Miner49er. Whether “people are people” is not material to the Constitution. By the “people”, the Founding Fathers clearly meant the citizens of this country. No, MINOR, just because one of your constituents reaches the border and “requests asylum” does not make him/her as one of the “people”. Under our LAWS, there economic asylum is NOT recognized. for your continued edification, it is not in the law nor was it ever intended to be in the law. Ipso facto, these illegal aliens are NOT part of the “People”. Have a good day!
People are ‘People’?
Pull up a copy of the US Constitution in a word processor. Go to “Find/Replace” Find: “the people” – replace it with: “the militia”. Hit enter. Now start reading from the top.
So, you’ve discovered that “the Militia” is going to elect members of the House of Representatives every two years? Does that sound right to you? What about some of the others places?
You’re basically saying that the Founding Fathers were so ignorant that in one place and one place only, they used the expression “the people” to mean something different to what those words meant in every other place.
And, darn it, that had to happen at just about the top of a “Bill of Rights” — and that “Bill of Rights” was formulated specifically to protect the individual rights of all of “the people”.
There were some states that refused to sign off on the Constitution until a “Bill of Rights” was added, not unlike the English Bill of Rights from 1789.
👍👍👍👍Unfortunately for the Left, there are some of us with a decent education while they were indoctrinated with Leftist dogma. They do just love to twist the meaning of words to fit their agenda of control over the populace.
Send this to all those on the left who are determined not to obey the law as established by these rulings, but expect us to obey every edict they issue.
Sweet. Like my law instructor years ago taught us. Laws are about legal and illegal, not right or wrong. If you don’t like a law, get your lawmakers to change it.
Exactly, and long ago the Leftists figured out that they could not do that, so they began legislating from the benches of radical Leftist judges instead.
Now that SCOTUS has finally reversed some of that, they are outraged.
What goes around, comes around. And non-Progressives have had their day in court.
I would like to lay claim to the high-ground. I’d like to maintain that I’ve done so. I acknowledge that I often fail in this lofty goal. Nevertheless, it behooves all of us to decide for ourselves whether we will adhere to this policy in our rhetoric.
I think it’s in our long run interest to hold the position I’ve articulated. Even when we don’t like the outcome. Even when we earnestly believe that SCOTUS has made the wrong decision. (SCOTUS does make wrong decisions. What other reason could explain that they sometimes reverse their own precedents.)
Jefferson anticipated that a republic such as ours would resort to politics by other means. He was right at least once. And we might imagine that he anticipated the issue that lay at the heart of this tragedy.
Two lessons our Revolution and Civil War should have taught us. The side which prevailed, in each case, was that having:
1) the guns – “Political power emanates from the barrel of a gun.” Chairman Mao
2) the necessary support of the People.
One without the other might prevail in the long-run. Both offer some promise of a shorter and less bloody resolution.
The Left are outraged, and many of them would rather burn down the entire system than abide by it. This number includes the current administration. What holds them to the law?? As far as I can see, it is only the People, who will turn them out on their asses at election time. However, given the state of education (i.e. communist indoctrination) in this country, my confidence in this is waning. Unfortunately, unless things improve, it will move on to “other means.”
As per one of my favored statements, “No government is going to outlaw itself.”
The left is always outraged over something. They are the self-appointed delusional ‘squeaky wheel’ of society.
And now, class, we learn about the difference between the terms legal and lawful, and why the Left is seeking to blur the two in the minds of uninformed voters. Please turn with me to page 47 of your instructional materials…
Page 47 is missing in my book, somebody must have used it to role a joint.
Yeah, I was pondering the same imponderable. language interpretations are meaningless when behavioral manifestation defy or redefine the letter of the law into the ‘spirit’ (but not the holy spirit’) of the law.
The “The Powers not delegated to the ‘United States’ …are reserved to the states respectively,,,OR TO THE PEOPLE”. Is that a typo? Is it and/or, or And? Just ‘or’ means something different than “of the people, by the people, and for the people, you know, like the Republic we are ultimately supposed to be?
The Abortion issue was never a problem for humanity or ‘society’ until certain Royalist power elite agendas made it one. Abortion history goes way back….Yes Joshua, even to the time of JEsus and before. No midwife worth her purple salt failed to always have a good supply of abortifacient herbs and chemicals to induce an early uncomplicated pregnancy failure. Rome in the biblical era had a propensity for family planning. They knew how difficult life could be for the poor with too many mouths to feed so they allowed contraceptive practices. At one time in Greece and their commercial travels certain teas and plants were worth more than silver.
Which became a no no for the Church, as it resolved itself to become a global corporatist-royalist world power with an agenda of the more the merrier as long as you stayed in the flock and strictly Obeyed THE LORD’s WORD. with the exception of the ‘rhythm’ method which was a mind-controlled conciliatory compromise that never worked. And the church’s membership expansion ‘control’ plan worked well to guarantee power and riches for the foreseeable future…until it didn’t anymore. Because the Church’s ‘attractiveness’ has been waning the last few years. And rallying around ant-abortion crusades is their agenda to be ‘resurrected’.
By the middle ages when not only could you be barbecued at the stake at the discretion of the local ‘god authority’ for the heinous crime of practicing ‘witchcraft’ in the form of secret dancing or singing or even laughing in the woods while picking roots and herbs (laughing continued to be a felony in my grammar school taught by nuns who were ex missionaries in China who got raped and tortured and it all came back to them while they had the ‘board of education’ in hand… a two foot long one by six paddle used daily on habitual offenders like me getting my ass reddened and swollen for even cracking a smile…
In the middle ages during the plague the church, for obvious reasons, had to ease up on birth control methods and for the penance you admitted you took herbs to eliminate pregnancies when the priest asked you directly if you were on the ‘herb’ and getting caught lying was still cause for a ‘hot night in the old town bonfire and all’, he only gave you fifty our fathers and 20 hail Mary’s for Penance.
Pregnancy Control and elimination was always there in humanity. It was even a decisive form of social population control. In bad times of starvation and disease, it was never desirable but generally a private, unmentionable below radar option that was tolerated with understanding when knowing your child would suffer misery and pain as an infant and die early of ugly disease or starvation. How could and reasonable objective person not cognitively unwell or trapped in their pre-programmed mind prison want to punish a woman for not wanting to bear a child that will suffer and die in a harsh and unforgiving world?
And in times like during Ceausescu’s tyrannical regime in Romania where abortions would immediately put you and the physician performing it in prison for years because they needed future soldiers as part of their power agenda.
Today, the church and all the snowflake Karen holier-than-thou ‘life is so precious’ advocates against abortions are simply stupid. Their anti-abortion right to life agenda promotions based on the so-called sanctity of life justification is so absurdly yet profoundly disingenuous that besides being stupid, you have the co-condition of being a moron.
Human Life is the cheapest commodity on the planet. It is completely worthless in and of itself. It has to be incurring an ongoing cost just to be sustained for several years after birth, otherwise it will fail. Humans are one of the most fragile species on the planet. They cannot survive, individually on their own, as most other animals soon after birth.
For every accomplishment humanity has supposedly heralded as some sort of success of the species endeavor, I can outnumber by 10 to 1 the egregious wanton destruction successes of civilization, Habitat, and cultures and LIVES in their existential universal pervasive damage from wars and horrific crimes against humanity.
If life was so sacrosanct, why are we seeing tens and potentially hundreds of thousands of people being slaughtered in a deeply totally unnecessary war in Ukraine? Life is not so precious there? But land and material resources certainly are!
Why do we still, in a modern world where we can create artificial intelligence smarter than ourselves, carry out murders in the form of government approved executions and socially agreed with public executions for criminals?! Because in our deep Reptilian brains we know that human life is not so precious after all. In fact, it is just another commodity to be used and abused on various levels of application.
The SCOTUS abortion ruling was, as this very well said article explained, correct in our Law of the land Constitutional schema.
However, the reality is that unless they are brainwashed and under the influence of religionist control, Most Women will Never allow anyone to ever dictate by law or any other extemporaneous means what to do with their own bodies. Period. Case closed. It simply is not in their genes or higher intellect. It is why they differ so much from men in so many ways a lot of people yet don’t get.
The abortion debate was politicized, as planned by the Church, many years ago. Candidates play on this. The idea of the 1st/A to preclude a theocracy doesn’t stop religionists from wanting one. So, the support of Christians fueled by their unification cause of saving unborn lives is good to have if you want to win elections. But it is a specious ‘feely good’ illusion for control over the masses that in reality and eventually will be abused and do more harm than perceived good.
While nobody ‘likes’ abortions, the truth is that this applies only until…you don’t need and want one yourself. Then you want to have a safe and conclusive experience, without the threat of government punishment.
I’ve got a gut-wrenching feeling that a lot of independent women voters might be swayed to the pro-abortion side of the political fence. So the Republican campaign supported by god fearing Christians might backfire in important swing states. We’ll see, said the blind man leading blind? But the reality is nothing as it seems.
And if you deny reality, you won’t be able to survive it.
hmm. Almost a TL;DR, but I ended up reading all of it. Twice.
As a lifelong, genuine, evangelical Christian, I can solidly say you struck some chords of truth regarding historical abuses by those who used “Religion” to serve their own ambitions, but you obviously speak with an bias against faith, and do not speak for Christians today.
Don’t be so offended. Nowhere did I say I speak for Christians today. I don’t speak for anybody except myself. My right. Just like your right to be a Christian is a right i have personally already defended in actual behavior in a war against religion hating Marxists to defend our Constitution which protects those rights.
Just citing some historic reality that has been redacted and interpolated and obfuscated to a point where nobody understands the true truth of life anymore. But the truth is out there, as they say. With the new information age we have now, The church no longer can sequester and confine it. Think about it. That’s the definition of slavery. And it is why the churches are virtually empty on days of worship now. People are understanding one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on humanity.
One question for you from an old religious scholar here: What’s the difference between a ‘genuine’ evangelical and somebody who is not?
“What’s the difference between a ‘genuine’ evangelical and somebody who is not?”
You’re somewhat proving my previous statement that you don’t speak for Christians, in that you’d know the answer to that if you were familiar with church (as in, a congregation of believers, not the Church you historically referred to). Pretty much every church across America contains a core group of genuine believers who adhere to biblical principles and follow Jesus’ command to “go and make disciples”; in other words, spread the Gospel. But there are also many who attend church as a sort of “check-off box” on their personal list. A way to feel like they’re doing what they believe is expected of them to remain in good social standing, but little more.
The 20/80 rule is very much applicable to church as well as business, in which 20% of a congregation are typically the ones who provide 80% of the finances, time, and support to their local church.
****
And I’m certainly not offended. Just not in agreement with you.
I have found out very quickly that there are people who comment on this sight that are evil, antichrist people. Commenting on a pro gun rights sight does not make one a good person.
Their hatred toward God and what is right and good makes them suspect. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”
You sure wrote a lot of stuff to say humans suck.
Your antichrist attitude is duly noted and rejected, jfkjr
Hope one, Yeah, I expected that, LOL!
You can always tell when a person is mind controlled either politically, religiously, or both. The don’t stay the point track with discussion which was the nonsensical futility of outright bans on abortion and might backfire on the Republicans in the coming elections. And they immediately retaliate against any criticism of their Faith based “TRUE” belief system.
And for “I Haz a Q”: Let me reiterate. Nowhere in the comment did I state or even imply that I spoke for Christians? I only mentioned actual historic proof–and there’s way, way more that the small bit that I referred to regarding abortions–of Church policy and history regarding the subject?
I don’t speak for any Religionists. Or any atheists. I’m a degreed academic specializing in the history of region. Not fake history, not ‘true belief’ history, but well documented REAL history.
I don’t ‘Believe’ in a God” I can show you pretty indisputable proof there was/is God(s). However, I can’t prevent you from having a different way of approaching the whole thing and don’t really want to because I don’t really care. Because your religious ‘devotion’ prevents you from having an open mind for anything other than what your proprietary faith instructs you to know.
If you study the truth about religions, you’ll find that Christianity was first organized by Constantine to assuage the constant fighting among splinter ‘Christian sects’ in his Empire in around 300-320 AD. He called it Catholicism which meant ‘Universal’. (yeah, as a professor told me once that Constantine was not only an Emperor ‘Christ’, (KING)but an early Marxist, LOL!) Constantine directed his newly promoted Bishopric under Eusebius to create a Book of God to be referred to in indisputable reference as the Word of God. The Bible. The rest to date is also well documented and verified TRUE history. And more is being discovered and revealed every day.
What the Church doesn’t like they purchase ana bury in their closet of skeletons, aka the Smithsonian. Right there with the other skeletons.
In works like ‘The Psychology of Religion’ one begins to understand things like human thought processes. I’m oversimplifying it for brevity but it comes down to two things. Pleasure or Pain in the insignificant human experiences. Our whole essence revolves around these primitive basic instincts. And still does.
But way back in the day, when people lived only to survive to the next day, and required companionship in numbers to do that and the family structure developed and expanded into proprietary cultural societies, life still was never going to be a vacation in Disney World. Life was hard work and miserabl for the most part. The strong survived and thrived through forceful warfare gains and the ‘POE’ folks’ and nothing to look forward to until others came and sat by the fire with them and told them stories of better things and explained that if they just ‘endured’ and had faith, there would be a better place in ‘the next life’.
This made them feel better and the communal family-type integration of people in this belief system made them feel Good! Instead of Miserable. Having community helped the economics of a collective study and moved society around, and thus Constantine’s invention was pretty successful…along those lines.
Provide shelter and comfort from the cradle to the grave for your flock and they’ll give you love and money.
I you like that kind of stuff, then go for it with the ‘holiest’ of blessings. As long as you don’t try to use me for one of your proselytizing efforts or call me kneejerk names like the Antichrist.
Then we’ll get along fine. Especially since we ALL have more important things to do like gettin out the vote for taking back our country…
Otherwise, if they reach maximum malevolent Marxist mode, we won’t have to worry about religious history at all anymore, will we?
So I’m dropping out of this off the topic line and leaving you with words from a man much wiser than most any of us…
“It ain’t that people don’t know so much…it’s just that so much of what they know, just ain’t so!” Mark Twain
on the dr. bronner’s castile soap label (not as entertaining as p.b’laster, i digress) you will find an essene contraception method, this from the 2nd century bc.
The History of Abortion in the United States is an intriguing topic. It occurred widely across the new country as 18th and 19th Century “Doctors” (I use that word loosely) and Mid-Wives provided early Abortificients and Uterine Evacuations. How often these services were performed is questionable as consistent record keeping was rare, and success and survival rates are unknown as well
In 1857, a movement started to end Abortion. Surprisingly, the movement didn’t start in any religious group, it was started by the fledgling American Medical Association. Doctors, are who wanted the procedure banned. By 1867, various churches were on board, and by 1880, the practice and performance of Abortions were banned, except in cases where the mother’s life was endangered.
So the very first Ban on the practice of Abortion didn’t come from a religious group, but by members of the very Medical establishment that once performed Abortions.
I don’t like using polls, but in this case, I think they might be fairly accurate in reflecting the general attitude about Abortion in America. An average of various polls shows that a slight majority of Americans support Abortion (depending upon the poll somewhere between 40 – 52% with the usual 10 – 12% with no opinion). The interesting thing though, is that in those same polls, when asked if they support Late Term and At Birth Abortio n, an overwhelming majority (60 – 76%, again depending upon the poll) said No to Late Term and At Birth Abortion. That speaks volumes to me about where the country is on the topic. Early Abortion OK, Later Abortion No.
The recent election referendum in Kansas, also supports what the polls revealed. A Total Ban was defeated, and a term restricted Ban was accepted.
Now, I’m Pro Life, but I do not think the “Trigger Laws” various States have enacted helps the Pro Life cause. The decision on Dobbs specifically States that this decision on Abortion lies with the peoples’ representatives. When Laws from long dead Legislatures are suddenly re-enforced, that is not the “will” of the people today. It’s the will of long dead voters. Trigger Laws are fueling this fight, not helping it.
The best and most democratic way to determine which direction a State will go, should be put as a referendum in November in those States. Let the citizens of the State’s decide whether Abortion is unrestricted, restricted or banned.
Just my opinion as usual, but I try to set my religious beliefs to the side when debating/discussing any topic.
““The powers not delegated . . . nor prohibited . . .” is succinctly referred to as “the police power” and it encompasses public safety, public health, and morals.”
So, “pubic safety” is relegated to the states. Are the FBI, ATF, and other law enforcement agencies unconstitutional??
Jimmy Beam,
“Are the FBI, ATF, and other [federal] law enforcement agencies unconstitutional??”
Yes and no.
“No”: federal law enforcement agencies ARE constitutional to the extent that they solely pursue outcomes which the U.S. Constitution empowers to the federal government. For example the U.S. Constitution empowers the U.S. government to collect excise taxes. It makes sense that the U.S. government has legitimate authority/power to create a law enforcement agency to enforce collection of those taxes.
“Yes”: federal law enforcement agencies are NOT constitutional if they seek to enforce anything which the U.S. Constitution does NOT empower to the federal government.
Having said that, U.S. government agencies will appeal to the interstate commerce clause to justify pretty much anything and everything and it will be a serious uphill slog to negate that justification in federal courts.
“[our nation has largely] failed to adhere to our principle of a rule of law, not of men.”
As I have been harping lately, people want what they want regardless of facts/truth and timeless, immutable standards of wrong versus right. And since “people” includes politicians and judges, we are where we are.
That simple fact is THE preeminent reason why the Framers codified the Second Amendment: they knew there could very well come a time when politicians, bureaucrats, and judges pursued their own designs rather than the prosperity of “We the People”.
I’ve no faith in court rulings.
Supreme or otherwise.
possum,
Can’t be no “Supremes” – Mary Wilson and Flo Ballard is dead. We’re gettin’ low on actual Motown artists, unfortunately.
I consider this article to be a very good read.
“Congress and the 50 state legislatures have very little leeway to alter these institutions without a new amendment.”
and yet we have Biden/Harris as a result of the craziness in the 2020 election. That wasn’t like any election I’ve ever seen. We were forced to accept this (as legal) and yet so much about it was wrong. THIS is the reason so many Americans see it as illegitimate and don’t feel like they can trust in the process anymore. THAT is so completely damaging.
I agree that the 2020 election was stolen. I hasten to add that there are 2 possibilities: 1) it was stolen; 2) it wasn’t stolen.
Whether it is 1) or 2) does NOT matter. The problem is that the evidence of a stolen election is strong enough that a significant fraction of the population believes it may have been stolen or was stolen. A republican form of government can not govern with this cloud hanging over it. Legitimacy is essential to a republican government.
Here is where We the People must take our responsibility seriously. If we won’t do so then politics by other means is inevitable.
For better/worse, elections are governed by our state legislatures. We have a better chance of fixing such a problem in our states vs. Washington.
I think we need to attack the legitimacy of each of our state legislators who is not actively promoting election reform. Send the message that: ‘YOU WILL be primaried; you will be voted-out because we will turn our votes to your still worse opponent. If you will not guarantee us free and fair elections we might as well hasten our trip to hell in a handbasket by voting for your opponent who promises constrained and stolen elections. You are failing in your primary duty to preserve republican government.’
That being the major issue, it is Congress that counts the electoral votes. Congress let the 2020 election happen. What is our alternative but to acknowledge that Biden IS president, albeit asserting that his party stole the election? (Biden himself is so cognitively impaired imo that he couldn’t have participated personally in the theft.) This is another aspect of the rule of law.
Governments, and officials, will make honest mistakes. They will make dis-honest mistakes. In the long run they will correct mistakes of both types, or we devolve into tyranny. It’s not a viable solution to resort to politics by other means each time some minority of us recognizes a mistake. It IS a viable solution to work within the system to reset the course when we see it is going off the rails.
What are our tools?
Clearly, we can withhold our votes (and money) from incumbents. No one who has fought and scraped his way to political office is willing to forfeit that prize to any opponent whether to the left or right, whether in his own party vs the other party. All we need to do is to collaborate among our neighbors to exert that small effort. And that’s not so hard to do at the municipal and state level.
We have defiance. We can use our voices/keyboards to announce that we will not comply.
We have Nullification and defiance of mandates. Look at the impact of state marijuana laws and sanctuary city practices. (Here, I take no position as to the objective merits of any such policy choices. This is a discussion of pure political science.)
It is nearly impossible for the Feds to enforce a law that 1/4 of the states will not enforce. Once the opposition reaches that level of strength, we can ask our Congress-critters why they are using our tax dollars to not enforce their laws which we will not abide? Let those states who want to forbid practices they object to bear the burden of enforcement.
In each case, what is the issue at hand? Is it an issue where Congress has the clear power to regulate? Or, is that issue reserved to the states?
Take, for example, illegal immigration. If sanctuary cities/states want to pay for public services to illegal immigrants, then why should citizens of other states subsidize their practices via Federal taxes? I think CBP is clearly Federal, while employment seems to be a state jurisdiction. Can’t we work out these policy differences among voters of diverse opinions through the 10A?
I completely agree.
Some things are so obviously true that you can just feel it.
Stolen election? I can just feel that it was, because I don’t need evidence. Even though Trump’s lapdog, Barr, said there was no evidence. And Rabid Republican Rathensberger, ( double word score for alliteration), claims there was no fraud.
It was obviously stolen by the same criminals as the operators of the Jewish Space Lasers, why hasn’t congress formed a select committee to investigate the Jewish Space Lasers, no way is there any other explanation for a forest fire, am I right? I just feel it, not like liberal feelings, I have good ol’ American conservative feelings which are obviously valid and carry more weight than some college educated intellectual’s
Proof.
If people don’t think exactly like I do, they should leave this country and go back where they came from.
There was evidence all over the place. It was all overlooked, ignored, and bypassed.
There have been documented cases of widespread voter fraud, ballot stuffing, and various other shenanigans.
The single biggest issue being that there was so many instances across the nation of bypassing state legislatures. This in itself is completely unconstitutional. Making any result illegal.
Store Clerk Shoots Man After Being Attacked With Knife
https://concealednation.org/2022/08/store-clerk-shoots-man-after-being-attacked-with-knife/
Sadly, this is pretty normal in the U.S. . ~1,300 victims daily in the U.S. are attacked by violent criminals who use knives for the attack – over 470,000 victims annually. 75% of the victims are not armed and are seriously injured or killed (later death after the attack), 18% of the victims are armed and are not seriously injured or killed (sometimes there are minor injuries), 2% of the victims are armed and are seriously injured or killed, 3% of the victims are not armed and are killed immediately, 2% of the victims are not armed but the criminal does not proceed with the attack for some reason. Its extremely rare for knife attacks to make the news.
annually, nationwide, there are over 52,000 victims of knife (or other sharpened edged or pointed weapons) attacks in school buildings or on school grounds. There are hundreds of serious injuries and deaths as a result. Less than 0.2% make the news and when it does make the news its local news, less then 1% involve police – this is because the schools try to handle it as a ‘mental health’ crisis and keep it quiet and don’t call the police.
Re: Knife attacks. It’s covered up by the liberal conspiracy.
Why?
Because good true red blooded AmericanS use firearms, not knives.
Do you know who uses knives?
Terrorists, minorities, immigrants, Brits, those that practice religions that aren’t in the American mainstream. Very simple, triple the height of the border wall, more rigorous profiling on airplanes( c’mon you know the ones, we just can’t say it out loud anymore)
Make them wear ankle monitors to protect us.
The longer we wait, the more difficult the fight will be to return to the values of 1836.
You Texans know what I mean wink, wink- nudge, nudge.
Wow, you truly are a mess.
On a serious note, when the law was established in Texas that bounty was available, paying off someone to rat out your neighbor for violating the laws restricting abortions, everybody thought it was great.
Reminded me of the neighborhood government watcher in a Havana apartment building
Now California is doing the same , but targeting people of the gun. I think the Texas legislature should rethink this approach. It’s a dangerous precedent.
Wow, you truly are a mess.
On a serious note, when the law was established in Texas that bounty was available, paying off someone to rat out your neighbor for violating the laws restricting abortions, everybody thought it was great.
Reminded me of the neighborhood government watcher inHavana apartment buildings or STASI informants in East Germany.
Now California is doing the same , but targeting people of the gun. I think the Texas legislature should rethink this approach. It’s a dangerous precedent.
Over 90% of these violent knife crimes criminals are never identified or arrested. A police report is generated but it doesn’t go into stats because there is no identity of the suspect to put on the report. These go into the ‘cold case’ files where they are never solved and the criminal is never caught or identified.
Out of all the serious injury or death victims of crime activity annually, over 10,000,000, violent knife attacks account for 4.5% of them, hands/fists/blunt objects are used in over 60% of them, firearms are used in less than 0.4%.
Less than 11% of these make it into stats.
A ‘more perfect union’ of our country and Constitution was never intended to be by our government becoming its own power, it was intended to be by the will of the people. It also was not intended to be subjected to the will of other nations governments.
While we are distracted by the democrats weapons ban that passed the house…. something else also needs attention
“Senator Rand Paul Has an URGENT Message About The UN Small Arms Treaty”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW3nLXudLp8
Once a nation signs on, the UN’s goal is to quickly impose “International Small Arms Control Standards” (ISACS) on them. Introductory language already includes:
*** Mandated national “screening” for those seeking to own guns, giving bureaucrats the final say if you’re “competent” enough to own a gun;
*** Restrictive licensing for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns and handguns;
*** Restrictions on the number of guns and amount of ammo any “properly-licensed” individual may legally own;
*** Bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds; and
*** Bans on owning a firearm for self-defense — unless a citizen can somehow get government approval.
The un can fuck off. Blue helmets make good targets. Talk about being invaded. un forces on US soil trying to enforce anything will cause a civil war to make the first one look like a carnival.
Blue helmets wouldn’t do shit they would rely on our bureaucrats to regulate the people into poverty to keep the guns and stigmatize and other anyone who opposed the program. You didn’t think the lockdowns, mandates, and tracing were actually related to the pandemic did you?
Hell no ! It was all a test. A test of many things. From bio weps, ballot stuffing, economics, hell things they didn’t even think of until later. How many border crossers are being recruited by the alphabet soup for later use after they infiltrate food plants, port facilities etc.? Now their being hired for gov jobs in LA county.
I reject the author’s conclusion in this article, just as I rejected the Court’s latest fake overturning of R v W. They supposedly “overturned” their ruling that made abortion on demand legal in all 50 states, but abortion on demand continues in any state that deems the life of the unborn worthless by vote of the godless legislature.
Before R v W, all states had some form of limitation on abortion, noting that babies in the womb are human life and were afforded some protection. That ended with R v W. It has not returned.
The author is completely off in his logic that the Constitution doesn’t speak to the act of abortion. Abortion is the taking of a human life that is innocent, never declared guilty of any crime and subject to loss of life for that crime. That is what happens in the “due process of law.” The 5th Amendment clearly says “any person…shall not be deprived… of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” A baby in the womb is clearly a human person (to any not deprived of sound reason). Therefore, their life is to be protected according to the Fifth Amendment, which is simply reiterating God’s moral laws on the matter. It is an unalienable right for a human being to live and not be deprived of their life!
Human life was never meant to be subject to forfeiture by a vote by any governing body, giving other human beings the right to take that life. NEVER! Years of indoctrination about a woman’s right of choice has clouded the minds of many, including this author. The woman has a choice in the matter to NOT get pregnant by NOT having sex with a man. If God’s moral law was followed, women would not be having sex with anyone other than their husband, and having children would be a good thing. Abortion was created for those who have no moral compunction against taking another human life in order to fulfill their own selfish desires…we used to call that the mind of a murderer.
“simply because the 14th Amendment”
No. The absurd notion that the Founders were relativists who did not believe in any objective right or principle except the whim of state-level voters (until 14A changed everything) is unsupportable for many reasons, but Justice Thomas reminded us anew in Bruen that, in deciding Dred Scott, “Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right ‘to keep and carry arms wherever they went'” – NOT “wherever state legislatures granted them the privilege”. Taney, overwhelmingly in sympathy with the “States’ Rights” movement, nevertheless accepted (long before 14A) that “the privileges and immunities of [all] citizens” included RKBA.
Nonsense, the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states until Hugo Black decided it did in the 20th Century. The Founders simply didn’t intend it
So according to you:
-Either Justice Thomas lied, or Taney was channeling Hugo Black?
-Despite everything the Founders wrote (and fought for) about rights being self-evident, universal, unchanging moral principles applicable to all free people everywhere, they took pains to establish a government where the exact opposite was the case – where it would have been no violation at all for e.g. a state to execute all redheads without a trial?
Why would so many people have fought so hard to include limitations on what Federal LE (and only Federal LE) could do to people, when Federal LE simply didn’t exist (and wouldn’t in any significant form for several generations)?
Luigi, I have to disagree with you. The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Incorporation applies both substantively and procedurally.
Thank God for the Fourteenth Amendment.
Comments are closed.