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.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS A PROTECTOR OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT FOR HOW LONG?

When recounting the import of U.S. Supreme Court case holdings, especially pertaining to our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties—the most important of which is codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights—one must be reminded that the Third Branch of Government is not a distant poor cousin of the other two and is not to be treated as if it were such. Yet, it is often denigrated as such, especially when some case decisions, like those in the recent Bruen and Dobbs cases, happen to throw some people into a fit of rage, threatening the Court and threatening the life of some Justices within it, and threatening the viability and “legitimacy” of the High Court.Two co-equal Branches of the Federal Government, the Executive and Legislative, along with assistance from the legacy Press, do nothing to curb this insult and danger to the third co-equal Branch. Instead, these two Branches, along with the Press, either remain silent, or actively, avidly encourage the disassembling of the Third. Hence the concerted effort to “tame” the Court through the device of “court-packing,” a thing the Biden Administration looked to accomplish through creation of a commission for just that purpose.  Fortunately, that came to naught. Still, these are the sort of antics of Americans come to expect from the Harris- Biden Administration. And we see these antics from a bloated, rancid, unelected, and unaccountable Administrative Deep State; and from an obstreperous, preening, arrogant Congress; and from a seditious, treacherous Press; and even from some academicians whose essays exhibit an unrestrained, radical Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist oriented socio-political bent.Americans see a treacherous Federal Government, a seditious Press, and large multinational conglomerates uniting in a collective effort to erode the underpinnings of a free Republic and eventually eradicate it. And it does so because a free Constitutional Republic doesn’t address their wants and desires—as if it ever should have been so.The present Administration does nothing to prevent a vicious, vile mob from attacking the Court, but remains painfully silent. And members of Congress go further, even inciting a mob to violence. Schumer, who should know better, as a Harvard educated lawyer—although he never practiced law—threatens a Justice at the steps of the High Court, and a would-be assassin eventually tries to oblige.  And Maxine Waters, a sociopath and lunatic if there ever was one, marches with a mob to the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court, shrieking: “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them.”More restrained in his remarks belittling the Court, but no less dangerous because of the nature of them, a Law Professor at Pepperdine University, one, Barry P. McDonald argues the founding fathers had intended to relegate the Supreme Court to second-class status. But, if true, the impact of that inference has dangerous repercussions not only for the Government itself but for the peoples’ right to check the power of that Government through force of arms. The Constitution to this scholar is nothing more than an amorphous, shapeless lump of clay to be reshaped and remolded at will or whim, not unlike a potterer producing a clay pot on a ceramic pottery wheel, changing the design as his fancy suits him, as the wheel goes round and round. McDonald’s essay was published as an Op-Ed in the NY Times, a few days after the Senate voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Obviously, Professor McDonald disapproved of the confirmation, no less so than The New York Times that sought him out as a credentialed college professor to give weight to its own abhorrence of the Court and of the confirmation of Kavanaugh to sit on it as Justice Kavanaugh. McDonald wrote, in principal part,“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.Why was the judicial branch given such short shrift? Because in a democracy, the political branches of government — those accountable to the people through elections — were expected to run things. The courts could get involved only as was necessary to resolve disputes, and even then under congressional supervision of their dockets.It was widely recognized that the Supreme Court was the least important of the three branches: It was the only branch to lack its own building (it was housed in a chamber of Congress), and the best lawyers were seldom enthusiastic about serving on it (John Jay, the court’s first chief justice, resigned within six years and described the institution as lacking ‘energy, weight and dignity’).When disputes came before the Supreme Court, the justices were expected to ensure that Americans received ‘due process’ — that they would be ruled by the ‘law of the land’ rather than the whims of ruling individuals. In short, the court was to play a limited role in American democracy, and when it did get involved, its job was to ensure that its judgments were based on legal rules that were applied fairly and impartially.What about the task of interpreting the Constitution? This question is the subject of some debate, but the founders most likely believed that each branch of government had the right and duty to determine for itself what the Constitution demanded, unless the Constitution was clearly transgressed. If the Constitution was clearly transgressed, the Supreme Court had a duty to hold Congress or the president accountable — but only in the case before it. The founders almost certainly did not envision a roving mandate for the Supreme Court to dictate to Congress, the president or state governments what actions comported with the Constitution (unless they were a party to a case before it).” So, we are to believe that the founders thought less of the High Court because of the Building they were housed in, or because they devoted a few lines to the Judicial Branch in Article 3 of the Constitution, or because we are to accept Professor McDonald’s on faith that the founders expected each Branch to decide for itself the expansiveness of its powers? And where, in all of that jockeying for power among the servants of the people in Government does that leave the people of the United States, who are the true and sole sovereign over Government? To give credence to this odd notion that the High Court is relegated to a humble position in the Federal Governmental structure, Professor McDonald intimates that John Jay resigned from the Court because he thought the Court lacked “energy, weight and dignity.”Professor McDonald fails to cite anything to support the inference or provide context for it.  The actual letter, where that phrase appears, a letter from John Jay to President Adams is available for viewing on the founders' archives website.  It is clear from a perusal of Jay’s letter to President John Adams, declining the President’s invitation to serve once again as Chief Justice of the High Court, that John Jay’s declination was not tied to a belief, contrary to what Professor McDonald intimates, that the framers must have had a low expectation for the Court and that, therefore, John Jay no longer wanted to be a part of the Court. Such an idea is absurd; yet McDonald places significant reliance on it for his thesis. But, if John Jay had such misgivings about the Court, he would not have served as Chief Justice of it, in the first place, nor stayed on the Court for as long as he did. The facts are as follows: “In 1789, after Jay declined George Washington's offer of the position of Secretary of State, the president offered him the new opportunity of becoming Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, which Jay accepted. He was unanimously confirmed on September 26, 1789 and remained on the bench until 1795. As this was an inaugural position, many of Jay's duties involved establishing rules, procedure, and precedents.” So, Justice John Jay, a founding father, did much to develop the federal judicial system and resigned, when elected Governor of New York. See article in NYCourts.gov.  A few years later, John Adams, the second President offered John Jay the Chief Justice position once again. He declined the offer but did so not because he thought the Supreme Court had been accorded no real power under the Constitution, but, rather, because he felt the Executive Branch of Government would not allow the Court to exercise its Article 3 powers as the Constitution intended, dismissing the Court’s authority and power out-of-hand. This early power grab by the Executive Branch came to a head in the famous case of Marbury vs. Madison, when Chief Justice, John Marshall, asserted the Court’s rightful powers that the Executive Branch had chosen to ignore. And in that struggle it was Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. President, who acceded to Marshall, acknowledging, if only reluctantly, the Supreme Court’s Article 3 authority that the Executive Branch sought to ignore.The Federal Government was just in its infancy, but, even then, the three Branches had started to jockey for power. Even so, usurpation of power is patently contrary to the dictates of the Constitution which delineates the powers and authority of each Branch, thereby establishing the parameters for the exercise of powers so delineated for each Branch. No Branch is permitted to transgress the Constitutional boundaries of power set for it. Had the framers of the Constitution sought to place the High Court under the auspices of another Branch as in the English Parliamentary System, the framers would have plainly provided for that. They did not.There were many possible Governmental forms and many permutations within any Governmental form to choose from.  The framers of the Constitution considered many configurations of Government and rejected all but one: A tripartite co-equal Branch Republican form of Government in which each Branch would be accorded its own set of limited, clearly articulated, and demarcated powers and authority. Thus, the Framers constructed one form of Government they hoped would be the least susceptible to insinuation of tyranny. Still the framers of the U.S. Constitution harbored doubt that their best efforts to establish a Government of three co-equal Branches would be sufficient to forestall the insinuation of  tyranny into the Government. Their concerns were justified.They knew that such is the nature of Government that no Governmental form would suffice to prevent the inevitable and inexorable tendency of a centralized Government with a standing army to resist the irresistible tug, and urge, and itch, to gather ever more power for itself.Since the Federal Government was constructed to be the servant of the people, the founders made certain that the American people would bear arms to secure their freedom and liberty from tyranny and they understood that the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms would rest—must rest—beyond the power of Government to toy with. For it is only through an armed citizenry that Government—especially one that is hell-bent in exercising absolute power and concomitantly oppressing the citizenry—can be kept from usurping the sovereignty of the American people and subjugating them in the process.Exercise of Governmental Power has shifted between and among the Branches through the decades, as they jockey for power and this is inconsistent with the plain text of the Constitution that demarcates the power and authority of each Branch; the power and authority that each Branch was allowed to wield, and not intrude on the domain of another Branch.The American people as the sole sovereign over Government would check the insinuation of tyranny—a given—through exercise of the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that would remain an immutable “constant,” irrespective of the machinations of the Three Branches of Government.And it is the stubborn constancy of the Second Amendment continues to rankle Big Government and its supporters to no end becoming more noticeable as the Government continues to devolve ever further into tyranny.  Today, we see the coalescing and merging of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branches. And we see attempts to bring the Judicial Branch into the fold.  And none of this bodes well for the American people. This means the right of the people to keep and bear arms grows more insistent. Consider——The Biden Administration, with a compliant Senate, has barreled through confirmation the first of a new kind of Supreme Court Justice: one who has no regard for the rights and liberties of the American people. This person, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is a person of mediocre talents at best, according to a National Review report. She was selected by the Administration’s shadowy puppetmasters, precisely because she is a dutiful proponent of the Marxist dogma of “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.” Did the National Review provide support for her nomination? One reporter did. See an article in the Federalist about this, chastising the National Review because of this. This nomination and confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson and more like her would not bode well for the independence of the Court.Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through DOJ/FBI and ATF misuse of its Administrative Rulemaking authority.And, does anyone doubt for a moment that five Justices—the faux Conservative-wing Originalist, Chief Justice Roberts, and four liberal-wing Associate Justices, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, plus Garland, wouldn’t have overturned the rulings of the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases, using the Bruen case for just that purpose, apart from affirming the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, for the Respondent City of New York, against the Petitioners. In a nightmare world that could have happened, and, indeed, would have happened. And, here in reality, the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists are more than annoyed at the outcome of Bruen and Dobbs, that their dream of negating the Second Amendment did not happen. They are absolutely apoplectic over that. Just look at how this obsequious, fawning head of the DOJ, unlawfully but dutifully targets Americans for special treatment at the behest of the Biden Administration and at the behest of other radical groups like the National School Board Association.    The framers of the U.S. Constitution would not be pleased but not all that surprised at the Government’s turn toward tyranny. As the framers wrestled with and finally settled on a Republican form of Government, consisting of three co-equal Branches, they also created a “failsafe” to offset the tendency of Government toward tyranny. Government would serve at the behest of the American people, the true and sole sovereign of Government and Nation but only if that Government is kept in check by an armed citizenry, whom, Constitutionally, it has no control over as it is prohibited from infringing the natural law right of the people to be armed.  Thus, the cause of frustration of those forces that seek to usurp the sovereignty of the American people by controlling their possession of and access to arms and ammunition.The British Empire sought to do this once and failed. Much more insidiously, the Government of the United States, today, seeks to do the same thing and this Government has been busily at work, especially in the 20^th Century and to the present day, to dispossess the American people of their firearms and stocks of ammunition and, further, to destroy their will to resist.Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through ostensible DOJ/FBI and ATF Administrative Rulemaking authority. Not to be long forestalled by the inconvenience of the U.S. Constitution, the Nation’s Tyrannical Government has attempted to do just that. The first major Federal legislation infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was in the 1930s with enactment of the appalling National Firearms Act of 1934 and Congress added to that infringement with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the “Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994.” And the threat continues to this day. These enactments conflict with the primacy and supremacy of the Second Amendment to ward off the threat of tyranny and are prima facie proof of the Government’s embrace of Tyranny. Yet——Historical events demonstrating the fact of Government usurpation of powers and authority that belong alone to the American people become of themselves legal justification for controverting the dictates of the Constitution.But Government action that erodes fundamental Rights and Liberty should not operate as prima facie evidence of the lawfulness of those actions merely because they occurred. But that is what we have. Historical events demonstrating unequivocal illegal Government action infringing Americans’ fundamental rights manifest, paradoxically—like a conjurer’s sleight of hand—as self-justifying evidence for the legality and propriety of the actions—a kind of historical necessity: “it happened, so it must be right and proper.” The historical antecedent event thus transforms as a transcendental moral truth.That is the argument the Biden Administration makes for corralling the Second Amendment. And that over-reliance on history and on the appeal to history as part of the Court’s standard of review of the legality of laws impinging on the Second Amendment point to a serious flaw in Bruen. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Amy Coney-Barrett must know this.In fact, Justice Amy Coney-Barrett specifically points to the problem of utilizing history as a standard by which to ascertain whether a particular Governmental action unconstitutionally infringes the Second Amendment. In a short concurring opinion which, curiously no one joined, she says, in part, this: “I write separately to highlight two methodological points that the Court does not resolve. First, the Court does not conclusively determine the manner and circumstances in which postratification practice may bear on the original meaning of the Constitution. . . . Scholars have proposed competing and potentially conflicting frameworks for this analysis, including liquidation, tradition, and precedent. . . . The limits on the permissible use of history may vary between these frameworks (and between different articulations of each one). To name just a few unsettled questions: How long after ratification may subsequent practice illuminate original public meaning? . . . . What form must practice take to carry weight in constitutional analysis? . . . . And may practice settle the meaning of individual rights as well   as structural provisions? . . . The historical inquiry presented in this case does not require us to answer such questions, which might make a difference in another case. . . . Second and relatedly, the Court avoids another ‘ongoing scholarly debate on whether courts should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868’ or when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. . . . Here, the lack of support for New York’s law in either period makes it unnecessary to choose between them. But if 1791 is the benchmark, then New York’s appeals to Reconstruction-era history would fail for the independent reason that this evidence is simply too late (in addition to too little). Cf. Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___, ___-___ (2020) (slip op., at 15-16) (a practice that ‘arose in the second half of the 19th century . . . cannot by itself establish an early American tradition” informing our understanding of the First Amendment). So today’s decision should not be understood to endorse freewheeling reliance on historical practice from the mid-to-late 19th century to establish the original meaning of the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, the Court is careful to caution ‘against giving postenactment history more weight than it can rightly bear [citations omitted].’” We discuss this problem of history as a component of a new standard of review in Second Amendment cases in future articles analyzing Bruen._________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved