PROGRESSIVE GAME PLAN: NEUTRALIZE THE SUPREME COURT AND DISARM THE CITIZENRY

The recent scurrilous attack on Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is part and parcel of the Political “Progressives”* attempt to neutralize the independence of the Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, and its most ardent supporter of an armed citizenry.On April 9, 2021, two years ago to this day of posting this article on the Arbalest Quarrel, Joe Biden issued an executive order, forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, “to examine the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices.”The key phrase in this executive order is “the Court’s role in the Constitutional system.”The Commission’s purpose may seem benign. It is anything but benign. Almost a hundred and thirty years earlier, Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted the same thing. Both sought to sideline and neutralize the U.S. Supreme Court.Fortunately, for the Nation, the efforts of Roosevelt and Biden came to naught.But the Biden Administration’s Progressive Globalist agenda is more extravagant and elaborate than anything dreamed up by Roosevelt and the fabricators of the “New Deal.”The Progressives’ goal of a neo-feudalistic global empire requires neutralizing the High Court and erasing America’s armed citizenry.The U.S. Supreme Court remains the only Branch of the Federal Government today that recognizes the importance of an armed citizenry to resist tyranny.In three seminal case law decisions—Heller, McDonald, and Bruen—coming down in the last fifteen years, the conservative wing majority, led by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and the late Justice Antonin Scalia, made patently clear the right to armed self-defense is an individual right and a natural law right, the core of which Government is forbidden to interfere with.But these decisions are at loggerheads with the Progressives’ desire to neuter the right of the people to keep and bear arms.In a report on “progressivism,’ published on July 18, 2007, the Heritage Foundation has described the nature of and the aims of the political, social, and cultural transformation of the Nation, using the word, ‘Revolution,’ to describe it.Progressives have since made substantial strides in undermining the Constitution and transforming America beyond all recognition.But use of the word, ‘Revolution,’ to describe this transformation is inaccurate. Rather, this extraordinary and extensive push to remake American society, is not properly a Revolution because we had our Revolution—the American Revolution of 1776—when America’s first Patriots defeated the British empire.These Patriots constructed a free Constitutional Republic, unlike anything the world has seen before or since.Having thrown off the yoke of tyranny, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, created a true Republican form of Government.This “Federal” Government is one with limited and carefully delineated powers and authority. And those powers and authority are demarcated among three co-equal Branches.The Government comes to be not by Divine Right nor by Right claimed for itself by itself. Rather, it comes into existence only by grace of the American people, who are and remain sole sovereign.Since the people themselves created the Government, they retain the right to dismantle it when that Government serves its interests to the detriment of the people, devolving into tyranny.The natural law right to armed self-defense, a right that shall not be infringed, is the instrument of last resort through which the American people maintain and retain both the legal and moral right to resist tyranny that Progressives impose on Americans. See AQ article, posted on October 1, 2021.Progressivism is a thing openly hostile to and antithetical to the tenets and precepts of Individualism upon which the U.S. Constitution rests. See, e.g., article AQ article, posted on October 6, 2018.Adherents of this political and social ideology perceive Government as sovereign over the people, turning the Constitution on its head.Progressivism is an evil perpetrated on the American people, coming into being without the consent of the governed. It seeks a Globalist “Counterrevolution” in counterpoise to the morally good and successful “American Revolution.” See AQ article posted on October 26, 2020.It is in this that the arrogant and ludicrous attack on Justice Thomas comes plainly into view.Representative Ocasio-Cortez, a Progressive Democrat, has recently brought up the subject of impeachment against Clarence Thomas pertaining to “luxury trips and outings on yachts and private jets owned by Dallas businessman Harlan Crow, according to an investigation by ProPublica . . . .” See the article published in thehill.com.She adds, in her typical hyperbolic, rhetorical fashion,“‘Barring some dramatic change, this is what the Roberts court will be known for: rank corruption, erosion of democracy, and the stripping of human rights.’” Id.Impeachment of a sitting Justice does fall within the purview of Congressional authority, but it is impractical and almost unheard of in the annals of history.The House of Representatives impeached Associate Justice Samuel Chase, in 1804. He was acquitted by the U.S. Senate in 1805 and served on the High Court until his death in 1811. Another Associate Justice, Abe Fortas, resigned under threat of impeachment, in 1969. See the article posted in history.com.Impeaching Justice Thomas in a Republican-controlled House won’t happen.Progressives try a different tack.“Sixteen lawmakers led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., sent a letter to Roberts on Friday requesting an investigation into ‘allegations of unethical, and potentially unlawful, conduct.’” See the article in Foxnews.com.Asking the Chief Justice to launch an investigation of his brethren is pompous, absurd, lame, and bogus.Roberts will do no such thing. And this will rankle Progressives.The Third Branch of Government remains constantly, aggravatingly, tantalizingly beyond the ability of Progressives to tamper with.Unable at present to sit more mannequins like Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Court, they continue to probe for weaknesses. As a last resort, these Democrat Progressives challenge the Court’s importance, independence, and role.Progressives employ like-minded attorneys to undercut the authority of the High Court.One such attorney is Barry P. McDonald, Law Professor at Pepperdine University. In an essay, posted on The New York Times, on May 26, 2016, McDonald writes,“The Supreme Court today is both political and powerful in ways that would be unrecognizable to the framers of the Constitution. They penned a mere five sentences creating a ‘supreme Court’ and defining its jurisdiction. The judicial branch was something of an afterthought for them, because they believed that in a democracy the elected branches would be responsible for governing the country.Judicial review, in its modern sense, did not exist. As the framers envisioned it, the justices appointed to the Supreme Court would mainly interpret and apply federal law when necessary to resolve disputes involving the rights of individuals. And though the framers’ views on the court’s role in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution are the subject of debate, it seems most likely that when disputes required determining whether a federal law comported with the Constitution, the court’s interpretation was supposed to bind only the parties in the particular case — not the legislative and executive branches generally.Over time, however, and especially from the mid-20th century on, the court’s vision of its role in our democratic system changed, from dispute resolver to supreme arbiter of all matters of constitutional law, so that elected branches of government at federal and state levels were bound to accept its interpretations. The American people largely went along with this accretion of power. But they surely never anticipated that eventually, many politically charged and contestable questions — for example, whether the Constitution guarantees the right to possess guns, to have an abortion, to allow gay couples to marry, or to allow corporations to spend money to help elect our political representatives — would be decided by one unelected justice who straddled political voting blocs on the court.This is democratic folly.”And, in a follow-up article posted in the Times, on October 11, 2018, Barry McDonald, writes,“When the founders established our system of self-government, they didn’t expend much effort on the judicial branch. Of the roughly three and a half long pieces of inscribed parchment that make up the Constitution, the first two pages are devoted to designing Congress. Most of the next full page focuses on the president. The final three-quarters of a page contains various provisions, including just five sentences establishing a ‘supreme court,’ any optional lower courts Congress might create and the types of cases those courts could hear.”McDonald claims the founders relegated the U.S. Supreme Court to a subservient role in our Three-Branch Governmental structure. This is not only an uncommon viewpoint among scholars, and legally odd; it is demonstrably false.In the Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton made patently clear that, on matters of Constitutional authority, the Legislative Branch must yield to the Judiciary.“No legislative act . . . contrary to the Constitution can be valid.  To deny this would be to affirm that . . . men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.  If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions of the Constitution. . . . . It is more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.”– Excerpt from Federalist Paper No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton and published in 1788, part of the founding era’s most important documents explaining to the people the nature of the Constitution then under consideration for ratification. See the article in constitutionalcenter.org. The article also cites to one of the Barry McDonald articles for comparison and contrast.Hamilton’s essay in Federalist Paper No. 78 is an outright repudiation of  McDonald’s remarks about the U.S. Supreme Court. See citations, supra.U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall was certainly aware of Alexander Hamilton’s remarks in the Federalist, when he drafted his opinion in Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The case is a mainstay of Constitutional Law, taught to first-year law students and one of the most important cases in American jurisprudence.The case lays out clearly and categorically the vital role played by the U.S. Supreme Court in our Three-Branch Federal Governmental system.In no uncertain terms, John Marshall, made definitely and definitively clear that it is for the Judiciary, not the Legislature, to determine the constitutionality of Congressional Statutes. We cite below a portion of  Justice Marshall’s erudite opinion.“If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.”

Progressives pretend the U.S. Constitution is capable of shapeshifting. It isn’t.That doesn’t bother them, though, because they intend to eliminate the Constitution. Referring to it now, as they must, just to destroy it, and creating something novel, more to their liking—a thing subordinated to international law or edict, and subject to change as whim or chance dictates—that's what they they have in mind.In the interim, they force it to cohere to their precepts, agenda, and goals, all of which are antithetical and anathema to the Constitution, as written.In the naked attempt to knead the Constitution as if it were a lump of clay, they show their hand.Trivializing the role of the Court because they can’t easily control it and going after a U.S. Supreme Court Justice they don’t like because he defends a natural law right they don’t agree with, Progressives proclaim to all the world their shameless contempt for Nation, Culture, History, Heritage, Constitution, Ethos, Ethic, and People.They dare disparage us. Yet, it is we, true American Patriots, who rightfully ought to visit derision on them.______________________________________________*The expression ‘Progressive’ as with the expression, ‘Liberal,’ (less so with the expressions, ‘Marxist,’ ‘Neo-Marxist,’ or ‘Classical Marxist’) do not have precise and rigid definitions, due in part, perhaps, to the ubiquity and popularity of the first two terms in the Democratic Party vernacular.Most Democrats, it is here presumed, prefer use of ‘liberal’ as applied to them. And some no doubt prefer the term ‘Progressive,’ as an acknowledged more extreme version of ‘Liberal,’ and they take the label as a note of pride. See article on the website, thisnation.com.But most, if not all, Democrats avoid the appellation ‘Marxist,’ at least publicly, even if that label is most in line with their ideological beliefs, social, political, and economic, and demonstrated in their actions. They might use that expression amongst themselves even if they dare not refer to themselves as ‘Marxist’ in public and would deny the description vehemently if the label is thrust on them by an outsider. For this article, we are staying with the expression, ‘Progressive,’ as it aligns most closely with the theme of the article and apropos of references made in it.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

MITT ROMNEY, THE NATION’S JUDAS, NOW CROWNED HARLEQUIN KING BY DEMOCRATS

A MESSAGE FOR MITT ROMNEY

With your vote to remove U.S. President Donald Trump, you have betrayed your oath; you have betrayed your Nation; you have betrayed the Constitution; and you have betrayed the American people.You must know the President is a staunch defender of our fundamental rights and liberties. Most importantly President Trump is a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and is committed to preserving the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms. As our founders knew, a free Republic without an armed citizenry is undone.If you had any integrity and common sense you would realize your duty to vote for acquittal. You should have done so. You did not.You might think that voting to acquit the President on one false charge but voting to convict the President on a second false charge absolves you of your treachery. It does not.You cannot “split the difference” here, much as you wish. You do not have the wisdom of King Solomon who, in order to determine a baby’s true mother, among two women each of whom claimed the baby for herself, suggested splitting a baby in two. Of course, the true mother would plead, and did plead, for the baby’s life to be spared. The false mother agreed to have the baby killed. King Solomon then gave the baby to the true mother.Your attempted gambit to appease both Republicans and Democrats has not worked. It never could. You have appeased no one, and you have fooled no one, except, perhaps, yourself.You thought you would appear reasonable, honorable, even righteous to the Senate and to the public. Instead, you come across as you really are, smarmy, shifty, vindictive, self-righteous, hiding behind a false cloak of piety, morality, and religion.On the floor of the U.S. Senate, you talked about the oath you took as a U.S. Senator. This is what you said:“As a Senator-juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise ‘impartial justice.’ I am a profoundly religious person. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the President, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.”You were “not wrong?” Really?When you say you are “not wrong” to vote to convict the President of high crimes and misdemeanors, you are also saying that your fellow Republican Senators, to a person, are wrong, in having voted to acquit the President; and that tens of millions of Americans who elected Donald Trump to serve as the President were wrong in placing their faith in him.Did you not see the President’s Defense team successfully tear the arguments of Schiff and Nadler to shreds? Is it not clear to you that the impeachment and attempted removal of the President from Office was a sham from the start?Can you not see that Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and the other Radical Left members of the deformed, mutated Democrat Party, desire to destroy our Constitutional Republic and to destroy the sacred rights and liberties of the American people.Can you not grasp that the Radical Left cannot destroy a Constitutional Republic until they first destroy President Trump who is a bulwark of our Nation’s freedoms and liberties?Do you not see what is plain to every other American? Can you not see that Democrats’ desire to impeach and remove Trump from Office was not based on any action he had taken while in Office but was a part of the Democrats’ design to undermine the Constitution before Trump even took the Oath of Office?Can you not see that these Democrats are once again hatching more schemes to prevent the President from performing his duties? Can you not see the dangers these Democrats pose to the security of our Nation, where the American people are sovereign, not Government?You have allowed your own passions to override your reason and have joined forces with the enemy from within.If you could not stomach the thought of acquitting the U.S. President because of your own personal animosity toward him, why didn’t you at least think about what your actions might do to the entirety of the Nation; to its people, and to the U.S. Constitution before casting a vote to convict the President of the United States on a bogus charge of “Obstruction of Congress.”Is it any wonder the Demo-wrecking crew Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and the other swarm of oily Democrats, along with their friends in the seditious media, would seemingly welcome you with open arms into their ranks, to be employed as their useful tool. Your hypocrisy and duplicity are on full display before the Nation, as are the hypocrisy and duplicity of the Radical Left Democrats. You belong with each other.Better it would have been if you had never entered politics. But, having done so, your best recourse is to resign from the U.S. Senate. We suggest you go back to your work in private equity, serving your own needs, and not pretend like the hypocritical and duplicitous Democrats, to serve the needs of the Country and its people.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

RADICAL ELEMENTS HAVE HIJACKED THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND WILL ABOLISH GUN RIGHTS AND OUR OTHER NATURAL, RIGHTS IF THEY REGAIN THE WHITE HOUSE AND U.S. SENATE

PART ONE

The Radical Left has hijacked the Democrat Party. That fact is clear and irrefutable. The Democrats have misused the impeachment clause of Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution in a calculated attempt to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. They sought to undo it. To further show their contempt for the U.S. Constitution and for the Second Branch of the Federal Government, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, in a presumptuous attempt to control the Senate trial, has withheld submission of the impeachment charges for weeks. That has now changed as Pelosi’s gambit has not paid off. The Republican-controlled Senate refused to play her game and has made clear it will dismiss the charges against Trump outright if Pelosi were to hold onto the impeachment charges indefinitely.Pelosi knows that impeachment is and was a sham from the get-go and that the Republican-controlled Senate will not convict Trump. It is nothing more than a naked attempt to delegitimize the 2016 election and to scuttle Trump’s election to a second term in Office in 2020. That was the true reason for and purpose behind Democrats’ impeachment of President Trump. Pelosi obviously doesn’t want to dilute the impact of the unconstitutional actions of the Democrat Party stooges, Schiff and Nadler, by deigning to pass an impeachment trial to the Senate, over which she has no control.A Senate trial will do nothing positive for Democrats except to expose, glaringly, the specious nature of the charges against the President. As the New York Post recently reported, Pelosi probably regrets capitulating to the Party’s Radical Left base and wishes the Democrat Party contrived impeachment nonsense would just go away.Trying desperately to save face, she is left spewing a vapid, childish “so there” comment, damning the President and thumbing her nose at the Senate: “This president is impeached for life regardless of any gamesmanship on the part of Mitch McConnell. . . . There is nothing the Senate can do to ever erase that.”The raison d’être of the Democrat Party and its bullhorn, the mainstream media, is quite simple really: drive a wedge between the American people and Donald Trump, to foreclose his reelection to a second four-year term in 2020. And it has always been thus; since the very day of Trump’s inauguration, which saw intimations of a takeover of the Democrat Party by Radical Left, Marxist, Socialist, and Communist elements.So, Americans do need to worry. No question. They have need to worry about a Democrat Party victory in 2020, were Democrats to control both the Executive Branch and both Houses of Congress.It isn’t enough that Radical Left elements have hijacked the Party and control the House. If Democrats succeed in winning the Presidency in 2020, and if they take control of the Senate, as well, they will hijack the Nation, too.How will they do this? The answer is clear. They intend to dismember the U.S. Constitution, stone by stone—a goal that had been quietly underway in Barack Obama’s administration and was to continue under a Hillary Clinton administration.Democrats, of course, deny this. Indeed, they claim they support the Constitution and to operate within the confines of it, but their agenda tells a much different story even as Democrats claim disingenuously to adhere to the dictates of the Constitution and to the Rule of Law. It is all pretense to suggest they do. They don’t.

DEMOCRATS’ AGENDA TO RESHAPE OUR NATION IN ACCORD WITH THE SOCIALIST TENETS OF COLLECTIVISM IS REFLECTED IN A PATHOLOGICAL DESIRE TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Democrats’ incessant assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, never truly in abeyance, has gathered steam since the early 1990s. The public has evidence aplenty of Democrats’ strong aversion to the Second Amendment.What is taking place, recently, in Virginia is a microcosm of what Americans can expect if the Democrats take control of the entire Nation.The first order of business for the Northam administration and the Democrat-controlled Virginia Legislature is to emasculate the Second Amendment right of Virginians--as citizens of the United States, not simply as residents of the State of Virginia--to keep and bear arms. Democrats, who now hold majority control of the Virginia State Government, are attacking the Second Amendment through the enactment of a flurry of antigun laws. Their reprehensible actions would appall the framers of the U.S. Constitution.Nothing speaks more plainly of the faith the framers placed upon it than the inclusion of the Second Amendment within it. And through the words of it, the framers made clear the sovereignty of the American people over Government; and the sanctity of each American soul. But these ideas are anathema to the proponents of Collectivism which the Democratic Party leadership and Radical Left elements within the Party in Congress and in the States, ascribe to. They intend to destroy the Second Amendment even as the natural right embodied in it—the right of the people to keep and bear arms—rests wholly beyond the lawful power of Government to regulate out of existence and eradicate outright.

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS IN OUR NATION PRETEND, HYPOCRITICALLY AND DUPLICITOUSLY TO VALUE OUR CONSTITUTION

Contemplate how the Radical Left claims, cunningly, craftily, to adulate Democracy, to uphold Democratic principles, yet eschews all reference to our Nation as the Constitutional Republic, which it is. The Daily Signal makes the point, too, that our Nation is a Republic, not a Direct Democracy. There are specific, meaningful differences. Emphasizing its zest for and extolling the virtues for democratic principles but, at once, avoiding reference to the expression ‘Republic’ isn’t an accident. Through its stranglehold on the Democrat Party, the Radical Left intends to upend our Republic. It intends to subvert our Constitution and to convert our Nation into one controlled by Leftist power brokers, a Socialist autocratic oligarchy. A ponderous Socialist Government would pretend to take its cue from the majoritarian mob, but that is subterfuge as the Radical Left controls and manipulates the masses through control of the media and through Government largess: all of it a sham.As for those Americans not so easily seduced through propaganda, a Leftist Government oligarchy intends to disarm the citizenry, leaving it defenseless, preyed upon by an unshackled criminal class and wholly dependent on Government to provide the populace with a modicum of protection, altogether inadequate and inept.

THE THREAT TO PRESERVATION OF OUR FREE REPUBLIC IS BOTH PLAIN AND PERVASIVE

Do you think Democrats’ threat to the preservation of our free Republic is farfetched? It isn’t. Not at all. Consider how Democrats through a seditious media have designed, since the inception of Trump’s Presidency, to attack and to warp our view of Government, of our history, of our culture, of our Judeo-Christian ethic—indeed of our very Selves, as a unique, proud, independent-minded and resourceful people. But, the Radical Left Democrat Party leadership and proponents of the tenets of Collectivism—will have none of that. They want none of it.The new wave of Democrats—comprising Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Leftist anarchist, and so-called New Progressive Left ideologues—working with their fellow travelers in the EU, intend to introduce and induce massive societal upheaval in our Nation. They seek to implement a transnational social, political, economic, and cultural construct—one wholly compatible with their wild and bizarre schemes and policies. But to succeed with a transformation of society, consistent with the Collectivist vision of reality, they must first rid themselves of the template the Founders utilized in constructing our Nation: the U.S. Constitution.Our Constitution, though, is no small thing. But for it, our Nation would cease to exist, as our Nation is nothing without it. This isn’t hyperbole. It is an ice-cold fact. The U.S. Supreme Court made this very point:“The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 270 (1990).The Democrat Party leadership and Radical Left elements in the Democrat Party, in media, in academia, in the Government Bureaucracy, in State and Federal and in the various sectors of commerce know this to be true. This explains why they desire to upend the Constitution, for the structure of our Government and the natural rights of the American people underlying that structure are inconsistent with the tenets of Collectivism.Thus, they demonstrate both fear and contempt for the Constitution. Preservation and strengthening of it are inconsistent with the Collectivist view of a world—a world devoid of independent, sovereign nation-states and a world devoid of a nation-state especially like our own: one consisting as the true Constitutional Republic.__________________________________________

PART TWO

THE RADICAL LEFT’S AGENDA FOR OUR NATION IS SMUG AND AMBITIOUS: NOT SIMPLY CONTENT TO ATTACK PORTIONS OF OUR CONSTITUTION, THEY WISH TO RETIRE AND REPLACE IT, BEGINNING WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Recall, it wasn’t long ago that retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, remarked that the Second Amendment should be redrafted to make clear and unequivocal that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not an individual, unalienable, immutable right. Stevens authored a book audaciously titled, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” In it, he proclaimed the need for a massive redraft of the Bill of Rights. Disagreeing with the idea of a set of fundamental, immutable, natural rights implicit in it, he wished to replace it, to reflect his vision of the world, one at odds with the vision of the framers.In his book, Stevens devotes attention to the Second Amendment to reflect his philosophy, his vision of America. His remarks constitute a vehement denunciation of the Heller rulings—as penned by the late eminent high Court Justice, Antonin Scalia—a strong denunciation Stevens dared not articulate in his dissent to the Heller decision.But, on further reflection, Stevens evidently felt that a substantial redraft of the Second Amendment would be insufficient to set the Country on the course he sought: one cohering with the tenets of Collectivism. So, he went further. He argued for the outright abolition of the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. The left-wing Magazine Time, citing John Paul Stevens’ Op-Ed appearing in The New York Times, wrote:“Retired Associate Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has an idea for addressing gun violence in America: repeal the Second Amendment.”Unfortunately, John Paul Stevens isn’t the only Supreme Court Justice who has condemned and has exhibited contempt for the Constitution the framers gave to us. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who presently sits on the Supreme Court, has also espoused little regard for our Constitution. The Daily Signal took Ginsburg to task:“Conservatives are often ridiculed for criticizing activist judges who fail to respect the Constitution. We are told that it is not conservative originalists (labeled ignorant and extremist) but rather enlightened liberal judges—with their nuanced understanding of constitutional penumbras—who truly respect the spirit of the Constitution.Conservatives, however, have good reason to be skeptical of the left’s ‘respect’ for the Constitution. . . for example, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as the model for Egypt’s new government. The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is ‘a rather old constitution.’ Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are ‘much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.’ Ginsburg’s comments echo those by Washington University professor David Law, who published a study with Mila Versteeg on the U.S. Constitution’s declining influence worldwide. In an interview, Law unfavorably compared the Constitution to ‘Windows 3.1’—outdated and unattractive in a world of sleek and sexy modern constitutions. Such obsession with the age of the Constitution is both absurd and irrelevant. Equally ridiculous is the claim that the Constitution is too antiquated to apply to the modern world. The principles of the Constitution, although first articulated centuries ago, are not tied to the material conditions of a bygone age. They rest on that most solid and enduring of all foundations: human nature. The Constitution itself contains no policy prescriptions. Rather, it is a short, elegantly written document that creates a framework for a free people to confront the political questions of their times.”Slightly over a year ago, the National Review pointed out that, with the various changes Democrats would like to make to the U.S. Constitution, they dared not mention, at that time, what they really are after. They realize that to make their Collectivist nightmare of America a reality, it is necessary to do away with the Constitution as it is the framework for our Constitutional Republic, which they seek to undo.But even as Congressional Democrats do not, at least at the moment, talk expressly of rewriting the U.S. Constitution in its entirety, the Democrats’ bullhorn, the mainstream media, has shown no such reluctance in doing so: proclaiming what the Collectivist world view requires.The Leftist magazine, Harper’s, emblazoned its October 2019 cover with an incredibly audacious question, as the lead-in to the magazine’s featured article, “Do We Need the Constitution?”Perusing the article, the reader comes to understand that the question is not only audacious; it is rhetorical. A subtitle within the magazine makes that clear, as Harpers presumptuously asks: “Has America’s founding document become the nation’s undoing?” Several Radical Left academic luminaries, namely Donna Edwards, Mary Anne Franks, David Law, Lawrence Lessig, and Louis Michael Seidman, address the presumed and misplaced—as they see it—subservience of the Nation to the U.S. Constitution. Harpers’ readers are obviously supposed to take on faith that the arguments evinced are logically sound, reasonable, and profound. But even a perfunctory analysis makes clear enough that the remarks amount to nothing more than sophistry, a collective superficial polemic, scarcely hiding the academicians’ contempt for the very framework of our Nation. Consider: how is it that Harpers and the Radical Left academicians would reconcile abandonment of a Constitution, one that has stood the test of time, with the idea implicit in the concept of "Rule of Law" that they apparently subscribe to and to the notion that they would ostensibly also ascribe to, namely that, in our Constitutional Republic, we, as Americans are ruled by law, not by men? Without a Constitution, as the backbone of our body of law built up over time, how might the American citizenry fare, under a new transnational system of governance--one predicated on Collectivist tenets that, at their core, eschew the dignity, sanctity, and inviolability of the individual?The slippery slope of incessant, incendiary, insufferable Leftist attacks on various parts of the Constitution in the Harpers’ feature article, ends with a proclamation in response to the rhetorical question, do we need the U.S. Constitution? “No we don’t need this U.S. Constitution at all”—which is to say, the concept of our Sovereign Independent Nation-State, as a Constitutional free, Democratic Republic, as laid out in our “rather old Constitution,” as Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserts, is too old-hat, to continue to exist and should be replaced: but replaced with what exactly? Through the words and actions of the Democrat Party leadership, along with the words and actions of Radical Left elements within the Party and within the greater society at large, and with the policy prescriptions of the Democrat Party Candidates for U.S. President, as mentioned in the Party debates, the American people should have a pretty good clue what these people they have in mind for the Nation if they gain the reins of power.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.