| No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle |
| |
|
03/20/10
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
October
29, 2007 "You have a constitutional right, that is protected, to bear and carry arms. It is the Second Amendment. If someone disagrees with that, you have to get the Constitution changed." Since Mr. Giuliani is a former federal prosecutor and these individuals' knowledge of the Constitution appears to be limited to reading court cases, the author decided to use a United States Supreme Court case to show prospective voters, who care about gun rights, that Giuliani is totally ignorant of the nature of the Second Amendment. In 1875, in the case of United States v Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that the rights enumerated in the First and Second Amendments were not granted by the Constitution and were not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. The Court also ruled that these Amendments were restraints on the powers of the federal government. The case involved alleged violations of Section 6 of the Enforcement Act of May 31, 1870. The defendants had been convicted on the sixteen-count indictment of violating the rights of two individuals whose rights were "granted or secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." In discussing the case, the Court stated: "To bring this case under the operation of the statute...it must appear that the right, the enjoyment of which the conspirators intended to hinder or prevent, was one granted or secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. If it does not so appear, the criminal matter has not been made indictable by any Act of Congress." In discussing federal powers, the Court said: "The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the Constitution or laws of the United States, except as the Government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States." The Court defined the legal question before it as follows: "We now proceed to an examination of the indictment to ascertain whether the several rights which it is alleged the defendants intended to interfere with are such as had been in law and in fact granted or secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." In rejecting the assertion that the plaintiffs' right to keep and bear arms had been violated by the defendants because the right was "granted or secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States," the Court ruled: "The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed: but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government." Since the right to keep and bear arms was not created by the Second Amendment, it cannot be classified as a constitutional right because, as acknowledged by the Court, the right exists independent of the Amendment. Thus, contrary to the inference by Giuliani, repeal of the Second Amendment would not negate the right. The sole purpose of the Amendment, as stated by the Court, was to restrain the powers of the federal government concerning the right to keep and bear arms. Giuliani professes to be a "strict constitutionalist" and claims he will only nominate "originalists" for the federal judiciary if he is elected president. If Giuliani's nominees share his distorted view of the Second Amendment, then how can the right to keep and bear arms survive a Giuliani Administration and the rulings of his "originalists?"
Now Available! See Editor's review here. "The Bill
of Rights Does Not Grant You Any Constitutional Rights" $10.00-includes shipping and any applicable sales tax. Send to- PSCS Note: We have several hundred copies that contain a few minor typos in a couple of quotes and a footnote. The average reader would probably miss them. However, with the purchase of a book we are offering these as seconds for $3.00 each to cover shipping in the event the reader wants to give a copy to a friend or relative. There is no limit and this offer is good until they are all gone. Email with
any questions concerning the book to-rbgreenslade [at] yahoo.com
Robert
Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government
and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through
ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in
an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American
people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the
Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some
small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by
the Constitution.
If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages. |
The 2004 Declaration of Independence The Constitution and YOU Part 1 The Constitution and YOU Part 2 The Constitution and YOU Part 3 "Newspapers in Education" needs an Education on the Constitution and Second Amendment If Women have the Right to an Abortion then I have the Right to Own a Firearm Left Wing Socialist wants to make Minutemen Domestic Terrorists A Catch-22 will Stop Plan by Democrats to Pull American Troops out of Iraq Hillary has a Bogeyman in her Closet Concerning her Latest Position on the War in Iraq "Government of the People, by the People and for the People" -- or Not? Are the Barry Bonds' Record-Setting Baseballs Subject to the Federal Income Tax? Tell me why the States needed the so-called "Collective Right" Second Amendment? Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade
| ||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
