| 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 |
| |
|
08/29/08
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
January
28, 2008 In an act of absolute disdain for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, U. S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, in a friend of the Court brief filed with the U. S. Supreme Court in the District of Columbia firearms case, claims the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are subject to "reasonable regulation" by the federal government. According to Clement and the Bush Justice Department, and I use the word "Justice" reluctantly, all federal limits on guns should be upheld because: "Nothing in the 2nd Amendment, properly understood, calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms." Clement also claims: "Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment." Sorry, Mr. Clement, but the Second Amendment, "properly understood," does not "permit" or authorize the federal government to do anything. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? The Second Amendment is a denial of power, not a grant of power. It specifically restrains the powers of the federal government concerning the right enumerated in the Amendment. Thus, contrary to Clement's assertion, the Second Amendment does not "permit" or authorize the federal government to impose "reasonable regulations" on anyone's rights. If Mr. Clement "properly understood" the Bill of Rights, he would know that the sole purpose of the Amendments, as stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, was to prevent the federal government from "misconstruing or abusing its powers." To accomplish this, "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" were being recommended. In other words, the Bill of Rights, when adopted, placed "constitutional prohibitions" on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from "misconstruing or abusing its powers" concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments. Thus, it is constitutionally impossible for the Second Amendment to "permit" or authorize the federal government to regulate a right. No such power is found in the Amendment. The assertion that government has the constitutional authority to place a "reasonable restraint" on a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights when the Amendments were specifically written and adopted to restrain the powers of the federal government is beyond an absurdity. Where does the federal government, Mr. Clement, get the constitutional authority to change the meaning of an Amendment that restrains federal power? If the federal government has this power, then the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meaningless because government can simply modify or remove any restraints on its power. Only in
the twisted minds of the reprobates in the Bush Justice Department could
a constitutional restraint on the powers of federal government be converted
into the power to impose restraints on the rights of the American people.
This blatant attempt to pervert the original intent of the Bill of Rights
and empower government should be the signal to the American people that
the time has come to breakout the torches and pitchforks. Some other, related reading: The Flawed Second Amendment Debate The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment Tell me why the States needed the so-called "Collective Right" Second Amendment? The Second Amendment is an Individual Right A Question For The Supreme Court
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. P.S.C.S. Email any questions concerning the book/booklet to Bob at-govtnitwit [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. |
Please see the bottom of the page for Bob's book offer. Archives The 2004 Declaration of Independence The Constitution and YOU Part 1 The Constitution and YOU Part 2 The Constitution and YOU Part 3l 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? Rudy Giuliani shows his Ignorance of the Second Amendment The Second Amendment is an Individual Right A Question For The Supreme Court The Second Amendment Question before the Supreme Court is Constitutionally Flawed and Dangerous Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade
| |||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||
|
|
