THE FAILURE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO ENSURE THE SANCTITY OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS INVITES TYRANNY AND TYRANNY COMPELS REBELLION
When the carefully demarcated authority among the three Branches of our Federal Government begins to fracture and when unelected forces operating in the shadows exert illegal control over the Government, the singular importance of and sanctity of the Bill of Rights (BOR) comes into stark relief. *
The BOR reflects preexisting, ETERNAL TIMELESS, NATURAL LAW instilled in Man by the Divine Creator.
Because the BOR expresses God’s Will, it embodies a MORAL STRICTURE that prohibits Government from treading upon MAN’s AGENCY (INTENTIONALITY).
The Framers of the Constitution’s Articles and BOR accepted as presumptively true the SANCTITY and INVIOLABILITY of each American. This is FOUNDATIONAL to THE CREATION OF AND THE PRESERVATION OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND TO THE CITIZENRY’S PERPETUAL AND ABSOLUTE DOMINANCE FOR THE CITIZENS, ALONE, ARE, AND REMAIN SOLE, AND SUPREME AND PREEMINENT SOVEREIGN OVER GOVERNMENT.
The ARTICLES of the U.S. CONSTITUTION set forth THE POWERS of each BRANCH of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT—LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL—WHICH FUNCTIONS ARE MIRRORED IN STATE GOVERNMENTS.
Such POWERS WIELDED BY THESE GOVERNMENTS—THOUGH FORMIDABLE THEY BE—ARE LIMITED POWERS, WIELDED ONLY BY THE CONSENT AND GRACE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
The People, then, who created their governments— THEY ALONE RETAIN BOTH THE MORAL AND LEGAL RIGHT TO DISPENSE WITH THOSE GOVERNMENTS, TO DISMANTLE AND DISSOLVE THEM, WHEN GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO WIELD POWER BEYOND THE LIMITED SCOPE ESTABLISHED FOR THEM BY CONSTITUTION, OR WHEN GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO ACCRUE NEW POWERS—— BEYOND THOSE EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS. Such events AUGUR THE ONSET OF TYRANNY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHALL NOT ABIDE TYRANNY, FOR TO DO SO AMOUNTS TO IRRECOVERABLE, IRREDEEMABLE MEEKNESS AND SUBMISSIVENESS, CAPITULATION AND ACQUIESCENCE, RESULTING IN OPPRESSION, SUBJUGATION, AND ENSLAVEMENT.
The American people do not rely on words alone to assert their dominance and sovereignty over Government, for they retain a formidable weapon themselves, to constrain a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (and those other GOVERNMENTS, the STATES) that would usurp the authority of the people over Government—a TRANSGRESSION of NATURAL LAW, away from THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS—WHERE GOVERNMENT DARES TO REVERSE THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE EXISTENT BETWEEN PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT, PROCLAIMING SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE PEOPLE, thereby unlawfully reducing the American Citizenry to a subordinate, subservient status in relation to Government.
For the Government to be able to accomplish the debasement of the American people, Government must arrogantly intrude on a sacred domain that the Constitution forbids. Government MUST NOT—MUST NEVER—INTRUDE UPON, TAMPER WITH, OR IGNORE THE AMERICAN PEOPLES’ BILL OF RIGHTS.
As a reflection of GOD’S NATURAL LAW, our Bill of Rights IS THE PREEMINENT DIRECTIVE to Government—A DIVINE DIRECTIVE NOT TO TREAD ON THE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS OF MAN.
Moreover, THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AT ALL LIKE THE ARTICLES OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THE ARTICLES ARE A SET OF MAN-MADE CONSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE WHOLLY UNLIKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS, EVEN AS NAYSAYERS WOULD FERVENTLY DISAGREE. FOR, IF THE BOR WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ARTICLES—WHICH IS TO SAY, IF THE BOR WAS A SET OF MAN-MADE CONSTRUCTIONS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ARTICLES IN THAT RESPECT, THEN THE BOR WOULD BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO AMENDMENT—DRASTIC MODIFICATION OR EVEN ABROGATION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART. IT ISN’T. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT AN UNSCRUPULOUS CONGRESS AND A MAJORITY OF STATES WOULD NOT—DIFFICULT AS IT IS—TRY TO AMEND THE BILL OF RIGHTS (WHICH HAS NEVER OCCURRED OR EVEN TRIED IN EARNEST (FORMALLY), TO THE EXTENT WE CAN ASCERTAIN (BUT SEE DISCUSSION INFRA AND ALSO ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT LAYS OUT THE MANNER IN WHICH AN AMENDMENT MAY BE LAWFULLY CARRIED OUT)). BUT WOULD THAT CHANGE ANYTHING? NOT REALLY. FOR CHANGING WORDS OR ERASING WHOLE SECTIONS OF NATURAL LAW RIGHTS DOES NOT THEREBY ERADICATE THOSE RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CREATED BY MAN. THEY ARE ETERNAL—AND LIKE THE DIVINE CREATOR, FROM WHICH ALL NATURAL LAW DERIVES—THAT NATURAL LAW IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO GOVERNMENT CONSTRAINT, WHICH IS TO SAY, GOD-GIVEN LAW IS UNLIMITED AND ABSOLUTE, AND GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO DENY MAN’S EXERCISE OF GOD-GIVEN LAW IS BOTH SINFUL, AS A MATTER OF MORALITY, AND UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, THE DENIAL OF OR CONSTRAINTS ON THE EXERCISE OF GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS IS ILLEGAL. FOR THE RIGHTS SET FORTH ARE UNLIMITED—THAT IS TO SAY—UNBOUNDED, UNLIKE THE ARTICLES OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH DELINEATE THE POWERS OF EACH BRANCH, AND ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES OF A STATE’S EXERCISE OF THOSE POWERS.
IN THE BOR, THE FRAMERS CODIFIED PRE-EXISTING NATURAL LAW, THAT IS INHERENTLY UNBOUNDED, TIMELESS AND INTRINSIC IN MAN, AND THEREFORE PREEXISTS ALL MAN-MADE STRUCTURES AND ALL MAN-MADE INSTITUTIONS. THIS REALITY IS IMPLICIT IN THE BOR, BUT IN CODIFYING THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE (WHICH SUBSUMES THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE—WHICH LOGICALLY ENTAILS ONE’S RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS IN EXISTENCE TO SECURE ONE’S PERSONAL LIFE AND SAFETY—THE FRAMERS MADE EXPLICIT THREE VITAL POINTS PERTINENT TO THE RIGHT OF (PERSONAL) SELF-DEFENSE). THESE INCLUDE:
ONE, “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” MEANS THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR “FIREARMS” (FOR FIREARMS ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE AND HAVE BEEN SO FOR CENTURIES).
TWO, THAT RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” THE PEOPLES’ EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT IS NOT SUBJECT TO LIMITATION BY ANYONE OR ANYTHING. IT IS ABSOLUTE.
THREE, THE PEOPLES’ EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.” AS CONCERN THAT THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF MAY ONE DAY TURN AGAINST THE PEOPLEM THE SOLE SUPREME SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY OVER GOVERNMENT, THE PEOPLE MUST KEEP AND BEAR ARMS TO THWART GOVERNMENT TYRANNY WHEN IT ARISES. THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOESN’T PRECLUDE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT FOR ANY OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSE OF SELF-DEFENSE. THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS PROPOUNDED AS A CONSTANT REMINDER THAT GOVERNMENT EXISTS ONLY BY CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED—THUS IN SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE. THE CODIFICATION OF THIS VITAL RIGHT ALSO SERVES AS AN ALERT TO THE PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE ALWAYS TO REMAIN VIGILANT, FOR THE MAN-BEAST OF GOVERNMENT BEARS WITHIN IT THE SEEDS OF TYRANNY AND THAT MAN-BEAST IS THE MOST SERIOUS THREAT TO THE PRESERVATION OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY THE (AMERICAN) PEOPLE WILL EVER FACE. THE THREAT IS CONSTANT AND FORMIDABLE AND ALL-ENCOMPASSING.
GOVERNMENT IS WELL AWARE THE PEOPLES’ EXERCISE OF THEIR NATURAL LAW RIGHTS, UNBOUNDED AND UNLIMITED, AS THEY ARE, POSE A POTENTIAL THREAT TO GOVERNMENT THAT IS PREDISPOSED TO ACCRUE MORE POWER AS TIME GOES BY. AND THIS HAS COME TO PASS. AND THE ACQUISITION OF MORE POWER OVER TIME COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FREEDOM AND LIBERTY OF THE PEOPLE. THUS, GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO PLACE CONSTRAINTS ON EXERCISE OF NATURAL LAW RIGHTS, PARTICULARLY THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS THESE CONSTRAINTS ARE PLACED ON EXERCISE OF THESE RIGHTS FOR THE WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE WELL-BEING OF GREATER WHOLE. NOT SO! NEVER SO! GOVERNMENT’S ACTIONS ARE ALL PRETENSE.
GOVERNMENT IS BOTH SUSPICIOUS OF AND JEALOUS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLES’ SOVEREIGNTY OVER IT, AND SEEKS TO REIN IN THE EXERCISE OF NATURAL LAW RIGHTS.
THUS, WHATEVER PARAMETERS OR CONSTRAINTS THE STATES AND/OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SEEK TO PLACE ON THEM— THROUGH EXECUTIVE EDICT, LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT, OR BY A SUBSIDIARY OF STATE GOVERNMENT (MUNICIPAL OR REGIONAL GOVERNMENT) REGULATION, OR ORDINANCE, OR BUREAUCRATIC RULE—THE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS THEMSEVES (SUBLIME, NON-MATERIAL, ETERNAL, ENTITIES), INHERE IN MAN, AND, SO, ARE NOT THE SORT OF THINGS THAT ARE CAPABLE OF BEING ERADICATED BY MAN, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PHYSICAL ACTS OF GOVERNMENT MAY HAPPEN TO MAKE. AFTER ALL, GOVERNMENT IS COMPRISED OF MEN, AND IT IS MEN THEMSELVES WHO ARE THE AGENTS OF ILLEGAL ATTEMPTS TO CONSTRAIN EXERCISE OF NATURAL LAW, ESPECIALLY THE KEEPING AND BEARING OF ARMS.
Some legal scholars, namely, and particularly, Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, suggest amending the Second Amendment, but, what he proposes, would make the RIGHT ESSENTIALLY SELF-NEGATING AND NUGATORY, which obviously is what he wants to do. See further discussion infra. See also the article published on “AllGov,” on April 14, 2014. “. . . Stevens proposes a five-word change to the Second Amendment. As he would write it, it reads: ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.’” That serves as an addition to Steven’s Dissenting Comment in Heller. Something he would have wish to place in the Heller case, but would not dare do so, for it would serve as an admission that the majority’s interpretation of the language of the Natural Law Right, was correct, after all.
Then there is California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has proposed a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to “enshrine” California’s restrictions on “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” to the entire Nation.
But, would not modifying the language of the Second Amendment adding such dubious California restrictions CONFLICT WITH AND CONTRADICT the phrase, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, as a point of logic, apart from the legal and constitutional ramifications of such an amendment?
Stevens and Newsom, and others like them, plainly do not recognize the existence of “NATURAL LAW RIGHTS—RIGHTS THAT ARE NOT LEGALLY OR LOGICALLY REALLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO MODIFICATION OR REPEAL FOR THEY EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF AND PRIOR TO GOVERNMENT AND TO ALL OTHER MAN-MADE ARTIFICES.
EVEN SO, IS A BILL OF RIGHTS SUFFICIENT TO KEEP A GOVERNMENT TYRANNY FROM TAKING ROOT THEREBY OVERPOWERING THE CITIZENRY, FORCING THE CITIZENRY TO PAY HOMAGE TO THE DICTATES OF THE TYRANT GOVERNMENT ON PAIN OF DEATH OR IMPRISONMENT?
IF SO, THEN, AT THAT POINT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NO LONGER RETAIN THEIR RIGHTFUL SOVEREIGNTY OVER GOVERNMENT, BUT ARE REDUCED TO SERVANTS OF AND “SUBJECTS” OF THE STATE, NOT SUPREME SOVEREIGN OVER THE STATE AND A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC CEASES TO EXIST.
If the Bill of Rights were merely a collection of Rights (and not Powers), then the American citizenry would be reliant on the good-will of Government alone to safeguard those Rights. But, as all Government is predisposed to Tyranny, and as there is, in the very suggestion that Government is the protector of those rights, the suggestion that the American people MUST NEED OR WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THOSE RIGHTS. THIS IS ABSURD.
WE, AMERICANS, DO NOT NEED OR WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT OUR NATURAL LAW RIGHTS. WE CAN DO THAT VERY WELL OURSELVES. “THANK YOU VERY MUCH.”
To ask the Government, or expect the Government, or require that the Government protect our rights, or worst of all, desire the Government to protect of Natural Law Rights is asking for trouble. As the Government would then take it upon itself to determine when or how or if this or that person or persons can exercise a Natural Law Right and Government would also create a panoply of constraints on the exercise of our Natural Law Rights—declaring, like parent to child, that such impediments are for our own good and for the good of a well-ordered society. This is all nonsense. What Government does in prohibiting or restricting natural law rights is never for OUR GOOD, but for Government’s own peace of mind. Government, ever suspicious of the people, will come up with seemingly plausible reasons for constraining Americans’ exercise of their sacred rights. Nothing good can come of that. Nothing good has ever come from that, as we have seen in countless instances in the passing years and decades.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS INCLUDES TWO FORMIDABLE POWERS OF THE PEOPLE—AND IT IS THESE POWERS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME, EFFORT, AND EXPENSE (OUR OWN TAX DOLLARS WORKING AGAINST US) TO CONSTRAIN.
NATURAL LAW RIGHTS THAT OPERATE AS POWERS INCLUDES SPEECH/DISSENT AND THE KEEPING AND BEARING OF ARMS.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT ONLY A CODIFICATION OF NATURAL LAW RIGHTS, RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE. IT IS A BILL OF POWERS.
THE BOR CODIFIES TWO RIGHTS THAT, IN THEIR EXERCISE BY THE PEOPLE, MANIFEST AS EXTRAORDINARY POWERS AND THOSE RIGHTS QUA POWERS—INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE—PREVENT A TREACHEROUS, OVERBEARING GOVERNMENT, AND A DECEITFUL AND ARROGANT GOVERNMENT, FROM UNLAWFULLY IMPOSING ITS WILL ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
So, of course, Government seeks to place substantial constraints on them. But, as a reflection of GOD’S NATURAL LAW, our Bill of Rights IS THE PREEMINENT DIRECTIVE to Government and we must resist Government’s interference with those TWO Rights qua Powers.
WHAT ARE THOSE TWO NATURAL LAW RIGHTS THAT ALSO OPERATE AS NATURAL LAW POWERS?
THE TWO NATURAL LAW RIGHTS THAT OPERATE AS POWERS ARE SPEECH/DISSENT AND THE KEEPING AND BEARING OF ARMS. THE TWO ARE REALLY BUT TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN—AN AMALGATION OF WILL AND ACTION.
THE EXERCISE OF WILL AND ACTION PROTECTS ALL OTHER RIGHTS AND IS THE MECHANISM BY WHICH THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY MAINTAINS IT KEEPS GOVERNMENT IN CHECK AND SECURES ITS SOVEREIGNTY OVER GOVERNMENT.
Any instance of Government (Federal and State, also) that impinges on these Rights must be perceived as a deliberate, direct, and unlawful attack on the supreme sovereignty of the American people over Government. Thus, an attack on elemental rights is an attack on Freedom and Liberty, a manifestation of Government’s intention to usurp the sovereignty of the people.
This amounts to a direct violation of a sacred trust existent between the American people and the Government, for Government wields limited but great power.
But this awesome power is only to be used in DEFERENCE to, and in OBEISANCE to, and in SERVICE to THE INTERESTS of the American people—IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE STRICTURES OF THE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
Thus, “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” is MAINTAINED.
HOWEVER——
Where Government BETRAYS that sacred pledge to the PEOPLE and to the CONSTITUTION, by using its power TO THWART the WILL OF THE PEOPLE and to UNDERMINE THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, then CORRECTIVE ACTION IS NECESSARY, MANDATED TO SET THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT BACK IN BALANCE WITH THE NATURAL ORDER.
GOVERNMENT FAILURE TO ABIDE BY ITS ROLE AS SERVANT TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE—FOR THE PEOPLE ARE THE SOLE AND SUPREME SOVEREIGN AND MASTER OVER GOVERNMENT—marks the onset of OPPRESSION AND TYRANNY AND, CONCOMITANTLY, THE TERMINATION OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.
WHERE GOVERNMENT DARES USURP THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE, WRONGLY PERCEIVING ITSELF AS SOVEREIGN AND MASTER OVER THE PEOPLE, AND THEREUPON TAKING UPON ITSELF THE ROLE OF SUPREME AND SOVEREIGN AND MASTER OVER THE PEOPLE IN DEFIANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN VIOLATION OF THE SACRED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT, THE NATURAL ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE IS AKILTER. The AMERICAN PEOPLE CANNOT and MUST NOT abide this INVERSION OF THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS. It is not for the PEOPLE to be reduced to SERVANT IN DEFEFERENCE TO AND OBEDIENT TO THE WILL OF THE TYRANT-STATE. THEIR RIGHTFUL STATUS AS SOLE AND SUPREME SOVEREIGN OVER GOVERNMENT, OVER THE STATE, MUST BE RECLAIMED. THE NATURAL ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE MUST BE RESTORED.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHALL NOT LONG ABIDE TYRANNY. FOR TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT ENTAILS DEFILEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE DEGRADATION AND DEBASEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE DESECRATION OF NATURAL LAW.
It is then that the PEOPLE have a LEGAL and MORAL RIGHT and an ETHICAL OBLIGATION to take up ARMS AGAINST THE CORRUPTING AND DEVIANT GOVERNMENT, to REBEL against TYRANNY.
This ACT OF REBELLION IS in accord with the NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO RESIST TYRANNY as BOTH NECESSARY AND JUST. FOR, IF THE GOVERNMENT refuses to maintain “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE,” then, BY FORCE OF ARMS, the American People will do so. There certainly will be sufficient Americans with the will and means to resist Tyranny. There certainly will be a sufficient number of Americans with the necessary will to resist Tyranny, and they have THE MEANS to successfully resist Tyranny.
LOOKING TO THE DISTANT PAST, AMERICA’S FIRST PATRIOTS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY PREVAILED AGAINST TYRANNY BEFORE—A LONG TIME AGO, TWO AND ONE-HALF CENTURIES BEFORE—AND AMERICA’S PATRIOTS TODAY, CAN PREVAIL AGAINST TYRANNY AGAIN.
The first time, America’s Patriots prevailed against an external threat to FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. In recent years, the threat to FREEDOM AND LIBERTY RESIDES WITHIN and, if TYRANNY of GOVERNMENT becomes too much in evidence to deny, America’s Patriots can take up arms once again and prevail against A TREACHERY manifesting within—TREASON ORIGINATING FROM AMERICANS’ OWN GOVERNMENTS (BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE).
Government wields powers to protect the Nation from threats to the Constitution and to the People—THREATS TO THE SANCTITY OF AND PRESERVATION of a FREE REPUBLIC. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, sets forth,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [Emphasis our own]
BUT WHEN IT IS THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF THAT BECOMES THAT UNRULY THREAT TO THE SANCTITY OF AND PRESERVATION OF A FREE REPUBLIC, THEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST DISSOLVE THAT GOVERNMENT AND, AS THEY WISH, CONSTRUCT ANOTHER TO REPLACE THE ONE THAT BETRAYED THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE AND FAILED TO COHERE TO THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DEVISED AND IMPLEMENTED IT.
EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL THREATS TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE ARE HANDLED DIFFERENTLY TODAY.
AN EXTERNAL ENEMY THAT POSES A THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE IS HANDLED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S WELL-EQUIPPED, WELL-TRAINED, TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED MILITARY, AND BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S MULTI-FACETED AND SOPHISTICATED INTELLIGENCE AND POLICE APPARATUSES.
BUT, WHEN AN INTERNAL THREAT POSED BY A CORRUPT, ROGUE, RENEGADE GOVERNMENT OCCURS, WHICH IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE AND INEVITABLE, SINCE NO GOVERNMENT CAN ADEQUATELY POLICE ITSELF—OR, IF IT OCCURS THAT A ROGUE GOVERNMENT IS TAKEN OVER BY SHADOWY EXTERNAL FORCES, HAVING BRIBED OR THREATENED GOVERNMENT LEADERS AND BUREAUCRATS TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THOSE MALEVOLENT FORCES, AND NOT THE INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY, IN STRICT ACCORDANCE TO THEIR OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES—THEN THE OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FALLS TO THE CIVILIAN CITIZENRY, MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS ARMED TO THE HILT, AS IT IS THE CITIZENRY (AND THE CITIZENRY ALONE, AT THAT POINT) WHO MUST TAKE ACTION, AS THE FINAL AND ULTIMATE FAILSAFE REMAINING TO PROTECT THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE AND ITS SOVEREIGNTY.
THE CIVILIAN CITIZENRY HAS THE MEANS, THE WILL, AND THE ABILITY TO OVERTHROW A ROGUE, TREACHEROUS, TREASONOUS GOVERNMENT—REASSERTING ITS RIGHTFUL POSITION AS THE SOLE SUPREME SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY OVER GOVERNMENT AND ULTIMATE PROTECTOR OF THE PEOPLES’ FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
A TREACHEROUS, TREASONOUS GOVERNMENT IS WELL AWARE OF THE AWESOME POWER POSED BY THE WELL-ARMED CITIZENRY THROUGH THAT CITIZENRY’S EXERCISE OF ITS FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS.
NO OTHER POPULATION ON EARTH HAS AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT RECOGNIZED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THAT POPULATION’S GOVERNMENT TO POSSESS WEAPONRY BY RIGHT OF NATURAL (DIVINE) LAW. IN EVERY OTHER NATION, IT IS ONLY BY THE GRACE OF THEIR GOVERNMENT THAT THE POPULACE KEEPS AND BEARS ARMS, IF THAT GOVERNMENT DEIGNS TO PERMIT ITS SUBJECTS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AT ALL.
ANY LANGUAGE TO THE CONTRARY THAT MIGHT SUGGEST AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS VACUOUS OR INTENTIONALLY DECEITFUL, FOR FURTHER LANGUAGE IN THOSE CONSTITUTONS (MEXICO’S CONSTITUTION AND GUATEMALA’S CONSTITUTION AS THOSE NATIONS ARE THE ONLY TWO NATIONS REMAINING TODAY, OTHER THAN OUR OWN, THAT EXPRESSLY MENTION A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS), MAKE PLAIN THAT GOVERNMENT PLACES TIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON WHO MAY POSSESS A FIREARM, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION MAKES THE POINT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS TRULY IS A RIGHT THAT “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,” AND THERE IS NO LANGUAGE ANYWHERE ELSE IN ANY OTHER PART OF THE NATION’S CONSTITUTION THAT EXPRESSLY SAYS OR IMPLIES HOWEVER SUBTLY, A LIMITATION ON OR QUALIFICATION OF THAT RIGHT. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS THEIR RIGHT INHERENTLY, PREEXISTING GOVERNMENT.
THAT RIGHT (AND FORMIDABLE POWER) IS NOT A CONTINGENT, TRANSIENT, OR EMPHEMERAL GIFT— BESTOWED ON ONE, OR NOT, OR BESTOWED ON ONE AND THEN RESCINDED AT WHIM AND DISCRETION BY THE GOVERNMENT (THE STATE).
ALL GOVERNMENT STATUTES, RULES, REGULATIONS, CODES, OR RULES THAT ASSERT OTHERWISE, ARE CONTRARY TO DIVINE LAW AS CODFIED CLEARLY, CONCISELY, AND CATEGORICALLY IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT THEREFORE BEFALLS TO THE CITIZENRY, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, TO MAINTAIN “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE,” FOR THAT FREE STATE BELONGS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE CITIZENRY. IT DOES NOT BELONG TO GOVERNMENT. THE GOVERNMENT IS A CARETAKER OF THAT FREE STATE, NOTHING MORE.
THE ARMED CITIZENRY IS NOT, THEN, THE BANE OF OUR COUNTRY THAT THE NAYSAYERS CONSTANTLY JABBER ABOUT. FOR THE ARMED CITIZENRY IS THE SOURCE OF OUR NATION’S INCONTROVERTIBLE STRENGTH, SUCCESS, POWER, RESILENCE, AND TENACIOUSNESS.
IT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT GOVERNMENT, THAT TRULY HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THE SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF AND PRESERVATION OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. BECAUSE THAT FREE REPUBLIC BELONGS TO THEM, NOT TO THE GOVERNMENT.
GOVERNMENT, FOR ITS PART, EXISTS TO SERVE THE PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLES’ INTERESTS, AND NO OTHER. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EXIST TO SERVE ITS OWN INTERESTS NOR THAT OF ANYONE OR ANYTHING ELSE.
ALL THAT IS REQUIRED OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO PRESERVE THEIR NATION AND REPUBLIC IS THEIR ABILITY TO PERCEIVE A THREAT TO THEIR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, ARISING FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND FROM THOSE ENEMIES, INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE NATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS IN LEAGUE WITH. IN THE EVENT THAT THREAT ARISES, THE PEOPLE MUST HAVE THE STRENGTH OF WILL TO TAKE SUCH ACTION NECESSARY TO UTILZE THOSE SUPERNAL GIFTS BESTOWED ON THEM BY THE DIVINE CREATOR TO VANQUISH THAT TREACHEROUS GOVERNMENT AND ANY OTHER ENEMY THAT TREACHEROUS GOVERNMENT IS IN LEAGUE WITH.
A government that trends toward Tyranny invariably shows its hand by constraining or curtailing FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS —doing so through artifice. That is one prominent indication of a Government trending toward TYRANNY. And there are other indicators. Those indicators were on display for all to see during the previous Administration.
The present Trump Administration has much work to take on and to complete to contain and clear up the massive mess. And President Trump demonstrates he is up to the task. He hit the road running on his first Day in Office and has not letup. Those myriad malcontents in service to Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist Internationalists complain that Trump is changing everything. That is not true. Trump ISN’T CHANGING ANYTHING if by that it means he is transforming the Country into something novel. He isn’t doing that at all. Rather, he IS REVERTING THE COUNTRY BACK to its sacred roots. Unlike his predecessors Obama and Biden, Trump has taken his Oath of Office seriously and has acted faithfully to that Oath of Office he swore on the day of his inauguration, first on January 20, 2017, when he served his first term, and now, on January 20, 2025 as he serves his second term in Office. Those who abhor Trump and his policies, do so because Obama and Biden had attempted and were well on their way to transforming the Nation into a thing completely alien to and antithetical to and incompatible with THE TENETS, PRECEPTS, AND PRINCIPLES OF INDIVIDUALISM, UPON WHICH A FREE REPUBLIC WAS ESTABLISHED.
THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS ARE THE CLEAREST EXPRESSION OF “INDIVIDUALISM”—THE SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF MAN. Unlike the Trump Administration, the Administrations of Obama and Biden found the BILL OF RIGHTS repugnant because it is expounds the highest ideals of INDIVIDUALISM—a PHILOSOPHY and BELIEF SYSTEM inconsistent with the transformation of the COUNTRY they sought surreptitiously, deceitfully, and treacherously to overlay a FREE REPUBLIC, grounded on INDIVIDUALISM, in order to override THE FOUNDATION OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, THAT WAS FOUNDED ON INDIVIDUALISM—UPON WHICH OUR COUNTRY GREW TO PROMINENCE AND PREEMINENCE IN THE WORLD.
What these treacherous Administrations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden attempted accomplish was deformation of a FREE REPUBLIC, and TRANSFORMATION into a thing unrecognizable, and horrible: A MARXIST-COLLECTIVIST DESPOTISM BEHOLDING TO MALICIOUS, MALIGNANT ENTITIES COMMITTED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE REPUBLIC, THE SUBJUGATION OF THE PEOPLE, THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTION and INTEGRATION into a WORLD EMPIRE, where our Nation’s natural resources and technological resources, our military assets and intelligence apparatuses, would be purloined to be utilized by THE RULERS OF A NEW DYNASTIC AND DESPOTIC GLOBAL EMPIRE, GROUNDED ON THE TENETS, PRECEPTS, AND PRINCIPLES OF COLLECTIVISM, THE ANTITHESIS of our own, and contrary to Natural Law Rights. Nothing good can come of a Nation grounded on “COLLECTIVISM.
Nothing ever good came from that. What has come from Nations grounded on COLLECTIVISM, and what continues to accrue on those populations where “COLLECTIVISM” dominates, is PAIN, ANGUISH, PENURY, MISERY, SUFFERING, AND DEATH.
The Framers of the United States Constitution, the Founders of our Independent, Sovereign Nation and Free Constitutional Republic, and generations of Americans since that have fought to maintain and strengthen our Country against external forces, jealous of our power and success (that have continually sought to crush us), would be absolutely horrified at the prospect, not merely of the loss of our Country, but that many of our Government leaders and influential business and financial interests would dare sell out our Nation out of a rapacious desire for wealth or the trappings of power, or would be motivated to transform our Free Republic into a Marxist-Collectivist State due to a decidedly peculiar appetite for Marxist-Collectivism along with a fondness for and admiration of regimes grounded on that ideology.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE TELL-TALE SIGNS OF TREASON AND TREACHERY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
A TREACHEROUS, TREASONOUS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL ENACT LAWS AND ISSUE EDICTS, AND SECRET ORDERS ALL OF WHICH ARE PLAINLY DESIGNED TO OPPRESS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, COAXING, CAJOLING, pr COMPELLING CONFORMITY of THOUGHT and ACTION.
A TREACHEROUS, TREASONOUS GOVERNMENT WILL DESIGN AND THRUST BIZARRE, ABSURD DOGMAS ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, DESIGNED TO CONFOUND THEM, MAKING THEM SUSCEPTIBLE TO DOMINATION AND SUBJUGATION.
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING CAMPAIGNS DELIVERED TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH A SEDITIOUS PRESS AND PERVERSE SOCIAL MEDIA, ARE DESIGNED TO RECONFIGURE THE PSYCHE OF THE PUBLIC, MAKING PUBLIC PLIANT, MALLEABLE, AND SUGGESTIBLE, AMENABLE TO ADOPTING NEW BELIEF SYSTEMS SENSITIVE TO AND ACCEPTING OF GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER THE PUBLIC.
THE GOVERNMENT WILL ENCOURAGE THE USE OF ILLICIT DRUGS, BY THE PUBLIC—NARCOTICS—DESIGNED TO DULL THE HIGHER FACULTIES OF THE BRAIN DEVOTED TO REASONING, PRODUCING AN INDOLENT, DOCILE POLITY, NOT INCLINED TO WORK AND TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE’S ACTIONS. THUS, THE POLITY BECOMES DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT TO SATISFY BASIC, MINIMAL NEEDS FOR THE PUBLIC’S SURVIVAL, AS THE POLITY IS REDUCED TO POVERTY.
IN SUCH A DEPENDENT STATE, THE TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE STEPS TO SUPPRESS EXERCISE OF THE PEOPLES’ FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, ETERNAL NATURAL LAW RIGHTS.
SCHOOLS WILL NO LONGER TEACH THE YOUTH THE BASICS OF GOVERNMENT, AS ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSTITUTION—AND ESPECIALLY THE IMPORT OF THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS. MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL, UNASSIMILABLE NATIVES FROM OVER A HUNDRED THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES WILL BE ENCOURAGED BY THE TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES. THEY WILL CONSTITUTE A NEW CLASS OF INDOLENT, DESTITUTE, AND DEPENDENT PLEBIANS THAT POSE NO THREAT TO TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT. THIS NEW CLASS OF HELPLESS ALIENS WILL EVENTUALLY REPLACE THE PRESENT POPULATION, BECOMING A COMPLIANT SERVANT CASTE.
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CARTELS, TRAFFICKING IN PEOPLE, DRUGS, AND OTHER ILLEGAL COMMODITIES WILL BE FREE TO ROAM THE COUNTRY, MARKING NEW TERRITORY WHERE THEY CAN OPERATE AT WILL.
DOMESTIC CRIMINAL PSYCHOPATHS, SOCIOPATHS, LUNATICS, AND THE LIKE, FREED FROM PRISONS AND MENTAL ASYLUMS, ALONG WITH ILLEGAL ALIEN GANG MEMBERS, WILL BE FREE TO TERRORIZE THE PUBLIC. A LAX CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WILL COMPOUND THE PROBLEM. COMMUNITY POLICE, DEFUNDED OR OTHERWISE CONSTRAINED FROM PROTECTING THE COMMUNITY, WILL BE UNABLE TO PROMOTE ORDER IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. THE TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT WILL DELIBERATELY CREATE THE IMPETUS TO DESTABILIZE SOCIETY.
THE PROCESS OF DESTABILIZATION OF SOCIETY AND INDUCED DEMORALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC WILL ASSIST A TREACHEROUS GOVERNMENT IN THE PROCESS OF CONSOLIDATING ITS POWER OVER THE POLITY.
RABBLE CONSISTING OF MARXIST CULTISTS, ANARCHISTS, AND PAID AGITATORS WILL ALSO ASSIST THE TYRANT IN SOFTENING UP PUBLIC TO QUELL RESISTENCE TO TREASONOUS TAKEOVER OF GOVERNMENT.
THIS IS JUST A TASTE OF WHAT A GOVERNMENT IMPOSING ITS WILL ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EMPLOYS AS IT CONSOLIDATES ITS POWER OVER THE PEOPLE.
The NAKED, BLATANT, UNLAWFUL SUPPRESSION OF AMERICANS’ FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, AND ETERNAL RIGHTS amounts to a major volley IN A WAR commenced by the TYRANT GOVERNMENT against the PEOPLE, as the TYRANT aims to USURP the sovereignty of the American People, placing the mantle of THAT SOVEREIGNTY unlawfully on itself.
THIS ACT IS IN AND OF ITSELF THE ESSENCE OF TREACHERY AND TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PEOPLE.
IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESIST and RELENT to TYRANNY, then THIS FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC DIES.
The Tyrant will attempt, unlawfully, to wrest sovereignty of the American people through subversive, seductive means, at first, to avoid direct violent confrontation.
By fomenting riots and causing societal destabilization, a Government trending toward imminent Tyranny, insidiously utilizes the horror it creates as an excuse to impose continuous noxious, and more draconian restrictions on the People, claiming all the while that the intent of Government is good, and right, and proper.
The inklings of Tyranny begin with constant, and increasingly repressive restrictions on Americans’ exercise of their fundamental right to freely express their thoughts, and freedom of association, and to restrict their access to arms and ammunition, and to surveil the people and invade their freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, the Tyrant will never say,
“I AM CENSORING SPEECH AND, AND I AM CONSTRAINING FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND I AM DEMANDING ACCESS TO YOUR PRIVATE AFFAIRS, AND I AM CONFISCATING FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION, ALL TO SECURE MY POWER.”
Instead, the Tyrant will mask his reasons for amassing power unto himself.
The public will hear seemingly plausible—but, on cursory reflection, baseless reasons for curtailing freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms.
Arguments boiled down to slogans will aim to convince members of the public to accede to constraints on the exercise of their rights:
“‘HATE SPEECH’ WILL NOT BE CONDONED OR TOLERATED.”
“FREEDOM OF SPEECH” DOESN’T MEAN THAT ALL SPEECH IS PERMITTED.”
“SPEECH THAT IS DEEMED HARMFUL AND INJURIOUS TO SOCIETY IS DISINFORMATION AND MISINFORMATION AND WILL NEVER BE CONDONED, TOLERATED OR PERMITTED IN A FREE SOCIETY.”
“‘GUN VIOLENCE’ IS INTOLERABLE. IT RESULTS FROM TOO MANY GUNS IN THE COUNTRY AND EASY ACCESS TO THEM, AND THAT IS WHY MORE LAWS AIMED AT CONSTRAINING GUN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION ARE NECESSARY TO REDUCE ‘GUN VIOLENCE’ IN SOCIETY.”
“STRONG GUN LAWS REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE.” [But strong laws targeting whom? Those Americans who wish to exercise their Right to Keep and Bear Arms and who are not a threat to anyone? If so, is the argument for such laws truly intended to “Reduce Gun Violence” (Criminal Violence) which is an intractable problem in society due to inaction by Government? Or, is the argument for such laws intended to Disarm the Citizenry because the Armed Citizenry poses a threat, a quintessential threat, to THAT TYRANT GOVERNMENT, who, itself, poses an existential threat to “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE”, thereby NECESSITATING NEED for THAT ARMED CITIZENRY?]
“NO CIVILIAN NEEDS AN ‘ASSAULT WEAPON’ OR OTHER ‘WEAPON OF WAR.’”
“RATIONAL, LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS DO NOT NEED OR WANT TO STOCKPILE GUNS AND AMMUNITION.”
“AMERICANS WHO KEEP FIREARMS ON THEIR HOME OR ON THEIR PERSON ARE MORE INCLINED, ONE DAY, TO COMMIT CRIMES OF VIOLENCE OR, THROUGH ACCIDENT, KILL OR MAIM THEMSELVES OR OTHERS WITH A GUN.”
“AMERICANS WHO CHOOSE TO OWN AND POSSESS FIREARMS TEND TO OBSESS OVER THEM TO THE EXCLUSION OF ENGAGING IN OTHER MORE SENSIBLE HOBBIES AND PURSUITS.”
“THE DESIRE TO OWN AND POSSESS FIREARMS IS UNHEALTHY AND IS A FORM OF MENTAL ILLNESS.”
“THE NOTION THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THAT THIS RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, IS ARCHAIC, OBSOLETE, EVEN OBSCENE. IT HAS NO PLACE IN A WORLD GOVERNED BY INTERNATIONAL NORMS OF PROPER CONDUCT.”
________________________________________________
Many Americans are susceptible to this nonsense. They take these pronouncements at FACE VALUE, which means “OF VALUE TO THE TYRANT who controls the citizenry by restricting free speech and conduct, and banning civilian citizen ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition.
YET, WHAT HAPPENS TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE TYRANT, IS AT ONCE BENEFICIAL TO THE “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.”
Many in the academic community, and in the medical, scientific, and legal communities, and many Collectivists in Congress and in some of the States, PROPOUND the following inane and dangerous ideas, and THRUST then on an ill-informed public:
AMERICA’S ARCHAIC ‘BILL OF RIGHTS’ NEEDS TO BE REPEALED AND REPLACED WITH A NEW AND RELEVANT DOCUMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. THE UNITED NATION’S HAS CRAFTED A USEFUL ONE, CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL NORMS, MAKING NO MENTION OF A PERSONAL RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE, WHICH IS A FUNCTION OF THE STATE, NOT INDIVIDUALS, AND THE UNITED NATION’S PROPOSED DOCUMENT OF “HUMAN RIGHTS” MAKES NO MENTION OF A RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE. THIS ABSENCE OF A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS MORALLY REPUGNANT AND DANGEROUS TO THE WELL-BEING OF SELF AND OTHERS AND TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE. THE UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENT IS TITLED ‘UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ (UDHR). IT MAKES NO MENTION OF A RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS INTRINSIC TO THE PEOPLE BECAUSE THE UNITED NATION’S OBJECTIVE IS DIRECTLY AIMED AT ENSLAVING POPULATIONS, NOT FREEING THEM. A FREE PEOPLE POSES A THREAT TO THE POWER OF STATES TO EXERT CONTROL OVER THEIR PEOPLE. MANY COUNTRIES HAVE USED THE UDHR AS A GUIDE WHEN CRAFTING THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL NORMS OF CORRECT THOUGHT AND BEHAVIOR IN A MODERN, CIVILIZED WORLD, MEANT TO CORRAL AND CONSTRAIN FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND ACTION, FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY ARE ANTITHETICAL TO THE WELL-ORDERED AND WELL-ENGINEERED COLLECTIVIST SOCIETY, DEMANDING ON UNQUESTIONED OBEDIENCE AND CONFORMITY.
AND, AS DIRECTED TO THE UNITED STATES, GROUNDED ON FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, AND ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OVER GOVERNMENT, THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THESE SALIENT TRUTHS OF A DIVINE NATURAL ORDER, THE CONSTITUTION, THE BLUEPRINT OF OUR NATION, A FREE STATE, IS ATTACKED, EVEN MOCKED, INCESSANTLY, VEHEMENTLY, ESPECIALLY IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS—BECAUSE, AS THE ARGUMENT GOES:
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS OLD, HANDED DOWN FROM A BYGONE ERA. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS AN ANOMALY, OUT-OF-TUNE WITH THE WORLD TODAY. IT IS WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH MODERN SOCIETY AND WITH THE INTERNATIONAL RULES-BASED LIBERAL WORLD ORDER. THIS DOCUMENT NEEDS TO BE DISSOLVED AND REPLACED WITH ANOTHER, A CONSTITUTION THAT IS IN ACCORD WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW AND NORMS, A CONSTITUTION THAT RECOGNIZES THE SUPREMACY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND NORMS, TAKING PRECEDENCE OVER THE RULES AND LAWS OF A THE UNITED STATES AS A FREE, INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATION (BUT NO LONGER FOR THE UNITED STATES IS TO BECOME PART OF A GREATER WHOLE—A WORLD COLLECTIVEST EMPIRE.
THE THREAT POSED TO THE SUPREMACY OF OUR NATION’S CONSTITUTION OVER INTERNATIONAL LAW—AND, IN FACT—TO ITS CONTINUED EXISTENCE AS A FREE REPUBLIC, AS CRAFTED BY THE FRAMERS AND RATIFIED BY THE STATES, FACES CONSTANT VIGOROUS ASSAULT, IN A DIRECT AND DECISIVE MANNER TODAY THAT HAS NO PARALLEL TO THE PAST.
Some writers believe changes to the Constitution’s Articles can make for a more effective-running Government. But, more effective for whom? And, what would that portend for our Nation’s BOR? See the article titled, “Constitution in Crisis,” subtitled, “Has America’s founding document become the nation’s undoing?”, in the Leftist periodical, Harpers, published in October 2019. Several leading political Progressive scholars discuss the matter, in an open forum.
The forum discussion begins with a bold pronouncement from Louis Michael Seidman that the U.S. Constitution is “illegal.” The tacit assumption, then, is that what is illegal is, is unenforceable. In contract law, an illegal contract is “void ab initio.” Realizing he must provide an argument to support an outrageous assertion, Seidman asserts, Seidman asserts,
**************************
It’s not just the American Revolution but the Constitution itself that was an act of constitutional disobedience. At the time the Constitution was written, there was another binding document, the Articles of Confederation. It required the approval of every state legislature to amend it. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention arrived with the explicit instruction that they were to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.
When they met behind closed doors—with no public input at all—one of the first things they decided was to disregard their instructions and just ditch the Articles. They agreed to have a method of ratification that was different from the one outlined in the Articles. The ratification was not to be done by the state legislatures; it was to be done by constitutional conventions, and it was not to be approved by unanimous consent, which was what the Articles provided, but rather would go into effect when nine of the states agreed.
So, from the beginning, the Constitution was in some sense illegal. It’s a neat trick to get from that to a time when people feel bound to respect the document.
******************************
This strikes us as sophistry, not hard argument. And one giveaway of is found in the sentence “the Constitution was in some sense illegal.” [Emphasis our own] The only trickery here is that coming from Seidman, who has an obvious motive. He wishes to eradicate the Constitution because it doesn’t cohere with his personal socio-political predilections. And, ostensibly, one way to do that is to exclaim that the U.S. Constitution is illegal in its inception and need not be adhered to. But then, what would replace it?
And, importantly, what becomes of our Nation in the interim and thereafter?
If the Constitution is illegal, then the Nation has no foundation, and simply dissolves into nothingness. That is something the Marxists would love to see. Apparently, Seidman would, too. In the quiet confines of academia, there is no hint of the turmoil such an outrageous disassembling of the Constitution would herald for the Nation and the People.
See also, the article, published in the Los Angeles Times on August 23, 2024, just eleven months ago, by the Progressive legal Scholar, Erwin Chemerinsky. His article is titled, “We’re living under a flawed Constitution. Let’s start fresh and rewrite it.” He begins his paper with this,
*****************************
No matter the outcome of the November [2024] elections [Trump won and Republicans won control of both Houses of Congress, no doubt to the chagrin of Chemerinsky], it is urgent that there be a widespread recognition that American democracy is in danger and that reforms are essential. No form of government lasts forever, and it would be foolhardy to believe that the United States cannot fall prey to the forces that have ended democracies in many other countries. . . . The framers of the Constitution, out of distrust for democracy, created the Electoral College so that elites would choose the president. However, never in the 20th century did the loser of the popular vote become president because of the Electoral College [Yes, well (“horrors”), Trump won both the Electoral Vote AND the Popular vote in November 2024] But population shifts and partisan realignment have made this a regular occurrence in this century. It happened in 2000 and 2016, and it almost happened in 2004 and 2020. In the last election, if just 42,921 votes had changed in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin, Donald Trump would have been reelected president despite losing the popular election by almost seven million votes.
Although the causes are complex, many of today’s problems can be traced back to choices made in drafting the Constitution, choices that are increasingly haunting us. After 200 years, it is time to begin thinking of drafting a new Constitution to create a more effective, more democratic government.
****************************
By the way, Erwin Chemerinsky is no fan of the right to armed self-defense. Back on November 1, 2023, just before the U.S. Supreme Court heard Oral Argument in the Rahimi case, Chemerinsky wrote an article explaining the importance of that case. And keep in mind that, Antonyuk, involves two Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari.
In the closing paragraph of their Brief in support of striking down the New York Government’s amendments to the State’s Handgun Law—a measure taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Bruen, (RE: THE ANTONYUK PETITIONERS’ FIRST PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERIORARI)—the Petitioners requested the U.S. Supreme Court to remand the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, rather than take up review of Antonyuk, immediately, in light of the upcoming Rahimi case that had not yet been decided at the time, but a decision was imminent.
There was a legal strategy behind Petitioners taking this tack, due to a couple of side issues in Rahimi. While of lesser importance to the disposition of Rahimi, those issues are crucial to Antonyuk: THE “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” requirement and application of THE “HISTORICAL TRADITION” test.
Clarification of those issues would also assist the Supreme Court in resolving future Court cases (BOTH STATE and FEDERAL) involving the constitutionality of State action impacting the core of “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.”
Concerning the “HISTORICAL TRADITION TEST,” Chemerinsky said this,
**********************************
From 1791, when the Second Amendment was written, until 2008, not once did the Supreme Court declare unconstitutional a federal, state, or local gun regulation. In the handful of cases about the Second Amendment, the court always said that it was about protecting a right to have firearms for militia service.
But in June 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court declared unconstitutional an ordinance that prevented owning or possessing a handgun. In a 5-4 decision, with the majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court held that the Second Amendment protects a right of an individual to have handguns in the home for the sake of security. The court did not prescribe a test or level of scrutiny to be used in evaluating gun regulations.
The court did not decide another case about the meaning of the Second Amendment for 14 years until New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in June 2022. The court, in a 6-3 ruling, declared unconstitutional a New York law that had been on the books for over a century that prohibited having a gun in public without a permit and that required a person to show cause, a safety need, for having such a permit.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion and said that a gun regulation would be allowed only if it was of a type that was historically permitted. He wrote, “To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.”
In other words, unlike all other rights in the Constitution, the usual levels of scrutiny are not applied; it does not matter under this approach whether there is a compelling government interest and no other way to achieve it. The court said that a gun regulation is constitutionally permissible only if it was historically allowed. The court expressly rejected any balancing of the government’s interests in regulating guns with a claim of Second Amendment rights. Justice Thomas wrote “the Second Amendment is the very product of an interest balancing by the people and it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for self-defense.
Zackey Rahimi physically abused his girlfriend while they were in a parking lot. When he realized that a bystander had seen this, Rahimi retrieved a gun and fired at the witness. The girlfriend ran away from Rahimi and he later called her and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. Subsequently, a court in Texas, after a hearing, issued a restraining order against Rahimi for a two-year period. Among other things, the order prevented Rahimi from threatening, harassing, or approaching his former girlfriend or her family. The order also prohibited Rahimi from having a firearm and informed him that such possession would be a federal felony. A federal statute – 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) – prohibits the possession of firearms by a person subject to a restraining order in a domestic violence case.
Rahimi was later the suspect in a number of crimes where a firearm was used. The police obtained a search warrant and on searching Rahimi’s home found a number of guns and ammunition. He was indicted for violating the federal statute forbidding those covered by a protective order in a domestic violence case from having a gun.
Rahimi asked the federal district court to declare the federal law unconstitutional. After it ruled against him, Rahimi pled guilty and was sentenced to 73 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declared the federal statute unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit explained that there were not such laws disarming domestic abusers in 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted and that makes this law unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s approach prescribed in Bruen. The Fifth Circuit stated there is “no tradition— from 1791 or 1866—of prohibiting gun possession . . . for people . . . subject to civil protective orders.”
Both the United States and Rahimi focus on historical arguments in their briefs to the Supreme Court. The United States contends that “American legislatures have long disarmed individuals whom they have found to be dangerous, irresponsible, or otherwise unfit to possess arms” and that “Section 922(g)(8) fits within that history and tradition because it disarms persons who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens.”
Rahimi, by contrast, stresses, as did the Fifth Circuit the absence of laws in 1791 that prohibited possession of firearms by those under restraining orders in domestic violence cases. Rahimi says that “[f]ollowing the process laid out by Bruen, the outcome here is straightforward.’ Section 922(g)(8) severely punishes conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.” He says that the governments approach gives “Congress carte blanche to disarm and punish the exercise of a fundamental, enumerated right.”
The case is likely to be enormously important in clarifying how the court applies its test from Bruen. At what level of abstraction is the historical analysis to be done? Rahimi says that the focus is on whether in 1791 there were laws preventing possession of guns by those under restraining orders in domestic violence cases. But the United States says that is the wrong question; rather the inquiry should be whether there were restrictions on dangerous people having guns.
Also, there is the question of whether the court will adhere to what it said in Bruen and pay no attention to the government’s interest in keeping people under restraining orders from having guns. Toward the end of its brief, the government argues, “Congress may disarm persons subject to protective orders even if the Founders did not.” In 1791, there was little protection against domestic violence and restraining orders were non-existent. Should this determine the meaning of the Second Amendment in 2023?
The court’s decision will matter greatly as to the constitutionality of countless other gun regulations. Are federal and state laws prohibiting convicted felons from having firearms constitutional? Can the federal government and state governments prohibit “ghost guns,” guns without serial numbers? Can the government ban types of weapons – AR 15s and large capacity ammunition magazines – that did not exist in 1791?
Beyond the Second Amendment, there is the question of whether Bruen’s strictly originalist approach, rejecting any consideration of the government’s interest, will spread to other areas of constitutional law. It is a dramatic departure from how the court has approached rights and equal protection at least since the late 1930s.
Ultimately, United States v. Rahimi will provide a crucial sense of how far the court will go in protecting gun rights and how much it will adhere to a purely originalist approach to the Second Amendment and perhaps the Constitution. [Emphasis throughout, our own]
The Petitioners believed with good reason the Court would take up Antonyuk ONCE the Federal Appellate Court had reaffirmed its prior negative decision in the case (which the Antonyuk Petitioners anticipated the Federal Appellate Court would do, AFTER WHICH the Antonyuk Petitioners would file their SECOND PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, anticipating that the U.S. Supreme Court WOULD take up the case (MUST TAKE UP THE CASE), because Antonyuk is THE MOST IMPORTANT CASE since Bruen, and because the Court had given every indication it would do so, thus showing a keen interest in having the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handle the case expeditiously [See infra reference to 2023 interim order of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case captioned, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, 143 S. Ct. 481 (2023)].
Well, the Second Circuit did reassert its prior rulings in Antonyuk, as the Petitioners had correctly presumed.
The Federal Appellate Court then remanded Antonyuk back down to the lower U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York for further action consistent with the Appellate Court’s rulings.
This back and forth movement of the case from one Court to the other the Second Circuit would keep Antonyuk in a continuous state of flux as the Second Circuit surely intended—the very thing that Alito had warned the Government (to mean “the Second Circuit itself,”) to forbear from doing.
The Second Circuit was sympathetic to the New York Government’s position on “GUNS” and on CIVILIAN CITIZEN POSSESSION OF THEM and had sufficient reason, then, to keep the case from a final resolution. As long as the case was denied final resolution, the Hochul Government could then continue to enforce its Handgun Law in the manner it wished. For the Second Circuit HAD LIFTED THE STAY on the Petitioners’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction that the lower New York District Court had granted.
Thus, as long as the State could continue to enforce its Handgun Law, this served as a DE FACTO WIN FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
That is all the State could reasonably hope for, but it was enough since THE AMENDMENTS to the HANDGUN LAW are FACIALLY Unconstitutional, and the STATE KNOWS that to be so, and, were the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review, the Court would be compelled to strike down much if not all of the State’s amendments to its Handgun Gun Law. The Court must do this if the Court is to assure consistency in its handling of the prior Landmark cases, Heller and Bruen.
The Antonyuk Petitioners knew well the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was deliberately delaying final resolution of the case, and the Antonyuk Petitioners would have none of that. They were not going to play that game, and Justice Alito had previously issued an order telling the New York Government (a message clearly meant for the Second Circuit) NOT TO DELAY PROSECUTION OF THE CASE.
The Second Circuit DELAYED the case anyway, ATTEMPTING TO HIDE ITS DECEPTIVE ACTIONS THROUGH LEGAL TRICKERY. This is in CLEAR DEFIANCE OF AN EARLIER SUPREME COURT INTERIM ORDER. The High Court told the Second Circuit not to delay resolution of the case. See Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, 143 S. Ct. 481 (2023).
The Petitioners had appealed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit order, vacating the prior order of the lower Federal District Court that had granted Petitioners’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, staying enforcement of the NY Government’s amendments to the New York Handgun Law that were in enacted in plain defiance of the Bruen rulings.
The Supreme Court denied the Petitioners’ “APPLICATION” to the High Court TO LIFT THE STAY but Associate Justice Samuel Alito added a comment, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justice Alito’s comment suggests that BOTH HE AND Justice Thomas agreed to deny the Application to vacate stay BUT DID SO RELUCTANTLY. Both Justices were anxious to hear the case.
They both knew that High Court review of Antonyuk WOULD RESULT IN—MUST RESULT IN—THE COURT’S STRIKING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT’S UNCONCONSTITUTIONAL, UNCONSCIONABLE AMENDMENTS TO THE STATE’S HANDGUN LAW. FOR THE STATE’S JULY 2022 AMENDMENTS TO THE HANDGUN LAW DON’T MERELY OFFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT, THEY OPERATE AS A DELIBERATE, BLATANT, AND CONTEMPTUOUS ACT OF DEFIANCE TOWARD THE SUPREME COURT’S BRUEN RULINGS.
Justice Alito writes,
The New York law at issue in this application presents novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments. The District Court found, in a thorough opinion, that the applicants were likely to succeed on a number of their claims, and it issued a preliminary injunction as to twelve provisions of the challenged law. With one exception, the Second Circuit issued a stay of the injunction in full, and in doing so did not provide any explanation for its ruling. App. to Emergency Application 2. In parallel cases presenting related issues, the Second Circuit has likewise issued unreasoned summary stay orders, but in those cases it has ordered expedited briefing. See, e.g., Order in Hardaway v. Nigrelli, No. 22-2933, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 36046 (CA2, Dec. 7, 2022), ECF Doc. 53; Order in Christian v. Nigrelli, No. 22-2987 (CA2, Dec. 12, 2022), ECF Doc. 40. [Emphasis our own]
The Petitioners thereupon filed their SECOND PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, obviously mindful of the Comment in Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli—A PLAIN ADMONITION AND WARNING TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT, NOT TO PUSSYFOOT AROUND ON THIS MATTER OF THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE TO AND SANCTITY OF A FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, NATURAL LAW RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE. AND THE SECOND CIRCUIT WAS DELAYING RESOLUTION OF THE CASE IN DEFIANCE OF THE COMMENT OF JUSTICE ALITO. SO——
THE PETITIONERS WERE THEREFORE CONFIDENT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD GRANT CERTIORARI IN THE CASE AND THEY HAD EVERY REASON TO FEEL THIS WAY.
THE PRINCIPAL REASONS THE ANTONYUK CASE IS AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT CASES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THE COURT THIS TERM—AND, OF ALL THE SECOND AMENDMENT CASES, TO COME BEFORE THE COURT, THE ANTONYUK VS. JAMES CASE IS UNDOUBTEDLY THE MOST CRUCIAL SECOND AMENDMENT CASE TO WEND ITS WAY TO THE HIGH COURT SINCE NYSRPA VS. BRUEN. CONSIDER——
THE SALIENT ISSUES HAD BEEN FULLY BRIEFED. SEVERAL AMICUS BRIEFS HAD BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF ONE OR THE OTHER PARTY: ANTONYUK PETITIONERS OR RESPONDENT NEW YORK GOVERNMENT.
THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD CAUSED UNNECESSARY DELAY, ANGERING JUSTICES SAMUEL ALITO AND CLARENCE THOMAS AND, PRESUMPTIVELY ONE OR MORE OF THE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S NOMINEES TO THE COURT, TOO.
THE CASE IS OF MONUMENTAL IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC.
ANTONYUK INVOLVES THE EXERCISE OF A VITAL, NATURAL LAW RIGHT.
THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE ARE NOT ONLY PERTINENT TO THE RULINGS AND REASONING OF TWO PRIOR LANDMARK CASES, HELLER AND BRUEN, THE ISSUES ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE CONTINUED VITALITY OF HELLER AND BRUEN AND TO THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
A POSITIVE RULING IN THE CASE WOULD RAISE ANTONYUK TO THE LEVEL OF FOURTH LANDMARK SECOND AMENDMENT. AND THAT IMPORTANCE WOULD HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE OTHER NATURAL LAW RIGHTS CODIFIED IN THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS.
THE NEW YORK LAW AT ISSUE IN THIS APPLICATION PRESENTS NOVEL AND SERIOUS ISSUES CRUCIAL TO BOTH THE SECOND AND FIRST AMENDMENTS.
THERE IS A RIFT AMONG THE VARIOUS CIRCUIT COURTS INVOLVING THE IMPORT OF BRUEN.
ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT STATES AND COURTS, PLAINLY ANTAGONISTIC TO AND SUSPICIOUS OF CITIZEN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, AND PREDISPOSED TO SEARCHING FOR LOOPHOLES AROUND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S LANDMARK DECISIONS, REQUIRE THE COURT TO CONTINUE TO ISSUE MAJOR SECOND AMENDMENT RULINGS THAT CLOSE THESE “LOOPHOLES” AND CONSTRAIN ROGUE STATES AND COURTS FROM IGNORING AND DEFYING HIGH COURT RULINGS AND REASONING.
SINCE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT PROPOUNDS ITS OWN RULES GOVERNING ITS PROCEDURES FOR ACCEPTING OR DENYING EXTRAORDINARY WRITS, INCLUDING APPEALS FROM LOWER STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS (ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI), THE COURT IS NOT BOUND BY THOSE RULES AS THE COURT ALWAYS HAS DISCRETION TO GRANT OR DENY REVIEW OF A CASE OR CONTROVERSY THAT FALLS WITHIN ITS APPELLATE (AS OPPOSED TO ITS ORIGINAL) JURISDICTION. IT CAN, THEREFOR, ALWAYS ENTERTAIN AN EXCEPTION TO THE COURT’S GENERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE BY VIRTUE OF ITS SINGULARLY BROAD DISCRETION TO GRANT OR DENY REVIEW.
THIS IS DONE IN CASES RAISING IMPORTANT ISSUES, AS IN THE CASE AT BAR, ANTONYUK. THE HIGH COURT CAN INVOKE ITS BROAD DISCRETION IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE TO ENTERTAIN A CASE THAT IT WOULD OTHERWISE ROUTINELY DENY REVIEW OF FOR REASONS OF NONFINALITY.
HENCE, WHERE, AS HERE, ONE CAN REASONABLY ARGUE, A FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT INTENTIONALLY REFRAINS FROM BRINGING A CASE TO CONCLUSION, I.E., ACTS IN A MANNER THAT OBSTRUCTS JUSTICE, THEN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT CAN DRAW UPON AND HAS, IN THE PAST, DRAWN UPON ITS BROAD (ABSOLUTE) DISCRETION TO GRANT REVIEW OF A CASE THAT, ABSENT URGENT NEED OR GOOD CAUSE, WOULD ORDINARILY DENY REVIEW OF, GROUNDED ON THE LACK OF FINALITY OF THE CASE.
AND, PERHAPS THE MOST PRESSING REASON OF ALL IS THAT ANTONYUK AROSE AS A DIRECT, POTENT CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NEW YORK’S AMENDMENTS TO ITS HANDGUN LAW THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROPOUNDED AS ITS RESPONSE TO THE BRUEN RULINGS THAT THE GOVERNMENT ABHORRED, AS THE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK MADE PLAIN IN HER PRESS BRIEFINGS, WHICH THE SECOND CIRCUIT CLEARLY SYMPATHIZED WITH AND ISSUED ITS ORDERS ACCORDNINGLY. THIS RAISES THE SPECTOR OF BRAZEN DEFIANCE OF A STATE AND A FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT CONTEMPTUOUSLY, AND HARDLY SUBTLY, DEFYING SUPREME COURT RULINGS AND, BY EXTENSION, BRAZENLY IGNORING THE SUPREME COURT’S ARTICLE III POWERS.
Concerning the last bullet point, Antonyuk was, importantly, brought, as a direct challenge to New York’s Handgun Law, stemming directly from Bruen. And Bruen involved a facial challenge to a core feature of that Handgun Law: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE “PROPER CAUSE” TEST.
Antonyuk is the linchpin of and starting point for any further work on Second Amendment law. From a LOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, the Antonyuk case is less a new Second Amendment case and more a continuation of the Landmark Bruen case. There is a linear process and progression found here and to be adhered to.
The U.S. Supreme Court has for the longest time treated the Second Amendment almost as an afterthought. The case law in this area is a fraction of what finds on First Amendment matters and in the area of Administrative law. Not without reason has Justice Thomas stated in frustration, even exasperation that the courts have wrongly treated and continue to treat Second Amendment jurisprudence as nothing more than a “Second-Class” Right.
CONSIDER——
THE IMPORT OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS, FOR TWO HUNDRED YEARS, FAILED TO ESTABLISH WITH A DEFINITIVE, INCONTROVERTIBLE CERTAINTY—AT LEAST IN THE MINDS OF SOME LEGAL SCHOLARS AND COURTS THAT WERE PREDISPOSED TO ABHOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND SOUGHT TO CONSTRAIN EXERCISE OF IT GIVEN THE INABILITY, THE SHEER IMPOSSIBILITY OF CURTAILING OR SEVERELY HAMPERING THE EXERCISE OF IT THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT ACADEMIA, STATES, AND COURTS CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED, ALBEIT ERRONEOUSLY, THAT——
THE ISSUE OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT THAT ONLY MAY BE EXERCISED WHEN AN AMERICAN SERVES IN A MILITIA BUT OTHERWISE HAS NO EFFICACY VERSUS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BE EXERCISED BY THE PEOPLE (EACH INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN) FOR SELF-DEFENSE—— AGAINST PREDATORY BEAST OR PREDATORY MAN OR (OF THE GRAVEST CONCERN TO THE SOVEREIGN CITIZENRY) PREDATORY MAN-BEAST GOVERNMENT.
HELLER RESOLVED THAT ISSUE, CATEGORICALLY, IF ANYONE HAD PRESUMED TO ENTERTAIN ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE MATTER, OR HAD DECEITFULLY WISHED TO OBFUSCATE THE MATTER DUE TO A DEEP-SEATED PREDILECTION AGAINST, OR OUTRIGHT HATRED OF AND ABHORRENCE TOWARD THE ARMED CITIZENRY.
The Heller case resolved that issue, categorically, if anyone should presume to have any doubt about that or if anyone deceitfully wish to obfuscate the matter.
STILL THE STATES OBJECTED TO HELLER’S APPLICATION, SOME OF THEM ANYWAY. THEY CLAIMED THAT HELLER ONLY APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT TO THEM.
THIS AROSE FROM THE IDEA THAT THE CITIZENRY HAS NOTHING EVER TO FEAR FROM THEIR OWN STATES—BUT ONLY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WITH ITS STANDING ARMY. BUT, THERE IS NO LIMITATION TO THE LANGUAGE OF ANY RIGHT CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. THE RIGHTS CODIFIED IN THE BOR ARE NATURAL LAW. THAT MEANS THEY PREEXIST GOVERNMENT OF MAN, ALL GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE STATES WHICH ARE NO LESS GOVERNMENT THAN IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
AND THE MCDONALD CASE MADE THAT POINT CLEAR. THOSE WHO HATE THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE LOOKED FOR ANOTHER AVENUE TO CONSTRAIN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT.
WHAT THESE STATES CAME UP WITH, OR OTHERWISE, CONTINUED TO EMPHASIZE WAS THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HELLER APPLIES TO THE STATES, THE STATES CAN CONSTRAIN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT THROUGH EXERCISE OF THE STATE’S POLICE POWERS. THE SUPREME COURT WOULD LIKELY NOT DENY THE IMPORT OF THE POLICE POWERS OF THE STATE AS THAT GOES TO THE AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATION OF THE STATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE HEALTH, AND SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITIES WITHIN IT AND OF THE OVERALL WELFARE OF THE STATE AS A WHOLE.
WHAT ISN’T SO CLEAR, AS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS NOT DEALT DIRECTLY WITH THE ISSUE, HAS TO DO WITH WHICH RIGHT/POWER TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE OTHER WHEN THE TWO POWERS CLASH:
THE RIGHT OF THE STATE, THROUGH EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWERS, TO CONSTRAIN EXERCISE OF THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE, TO MAINTAIN THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE STATE VERSUS THE UNALIENABLE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR PERSONAL SAFETY THROUGH ARMED SELF-DEFENSE.
PRIOR TO HELLER, THE COURT EMPLOYED A BALANCING TEST—WEIGHING THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH THE STATE INVARIABLY CLAIMED REQUIRES CONSTRAINTS ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR OWN DEFENSE, THEREBY HAMPERING, INHIBITING, FRUSTRATING THE INDIVIDUAL’S ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR HIS PERSONAL SAFETY WITH THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS TO DO SO. HELLER THREW OUT “INTEREST BALANCING” AS THAT TENDED TO FAVOR THE STATES.
The States took as self-evident true that the mere volume of guns on the streets endangers public safety. The individual who wishes to exercise his fundamental right assumes the obverse: that the armed citizen by taking responsibility for his own safety also contributes to public safety in crime reduction. And the need for ARMED PERSONAL SAFETY becomes imperative when as the States often do a very poor job in protecting the public, compounding the problem by constraining the law-abiding citizen from protecting himself. Normative questions arise from this. Moreover, there is one BLACK LETTER LAW. Under the doctrine of SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, the STATE HAS NO OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THE LIFE AND SAFETY OF ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF A COMMUNITY, EXCEPT IN VERY NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES, I.E., WHEN THE STATE, FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, PROVIDES THAT SPECIAL PROTECTION TO A COMMUNITY MEMBER. MOST PEOPLE DON’T REALIZE THIS, AND THE STATE DOESN’T MAKE THIS KNOWN FOR THE OBVIOUS REASON THAT THE STATE WOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT, HOWEVER WELL OR POORLY THEY PROTECT THE COMMUNITY, THE STATE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE IN THE EVENT AN INNOCENT PERSON IS SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED BY A CRIMINAL OR LUNATIC. THUS, THE ONUS IS ALWAYS ON THE INDIVIDUAL TO PROVIDE FOR HIS PERSONAL SAFETY.
Heller threw out INTEREST-BALANCING. opting for a new standard not prone to unconscious bias of the courts. The Heller invoked “HISTORICAL TRADITION.” The Court opined that, if there is a historical analogue for exercise of the police power, then the Court must defer to the State. But, if no historical analogue exists for the State action, then the Court must defer to the Individual. Bruen provided some clarity, but only a start. Three major problems arose as the Courts started to use “Historical Tradition.” First, what point in time should the Court utilize when assessing whether a State action in the past provides the necessary analog supporting the State action? Second, what constitutes an appropriate analog for comparison? Third, must a Court only look to past actions of the State where the Court has jurisdiction, or may the Court look to the actions of other States to secure an analog if none exists in the Court’s own jurisdiction? The las question also impacts the historical time period.
Concerning the Police powers of the State, the mechanisms employed present problems as Bruen recognize. The primary mechanism that the State uses today to constrain exercise of a person’s right to armed self-defense, is handgun licensing.
THIS RAISES THE SPECTER OF INTEREST-BALANCING ONCE AGAIN. WHEN DO THE POLICE POWERS OF THE STATE OVERRIDE THE RIGHT CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND WHEN DOES THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS TAKE PRECEDENCE. WHEN STATES CONSTRAIN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT BY CRAFTING HANDGUN LICENSING LAWS, THE STATE INTERPOSES ITSELF BETWEEN THE CITIZEN AND HIS EXERCISE OF A FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHT. A STATE THAT WISHES TO ARTIFICIALLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CITIZENS STATE WHO CAN CARRY A HANDGUN FOR SELF-DEFENSE OUTSIDE THE HOME—PRIOR TO BRUEN—HAD CRAFTED LEGAL DEVICES TO ENSURE THAT VERY FEW PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THEIR STATE ARE ISSUED LICENSES—A PRECONDITION TO LAWFUL CARRYING A HANDGUN IN PUBLIC FOR SELF-DEFENSE.
THE USE OF A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED LICENSE ALLOWS A STATE TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER WHO MAY LAWFULLY CARRY A HANDGUN WHEN IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. AND STATE OFFICIALS HAVE OFTEN BEEN GIVEN GREAT DISCRETION IN GRANTING OR DENYING ISSUANCE OF A HANDGUN LICENSE.
IN BRUEN NEW YORK RESIDENTS CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE IMPOSING ON THE INDIVIUDAL ARTIFICIAL BARRIERS TO ACQUIRING A HANDGUN LICENSE.
NEW YORK HAD LONG UTILIZED A “PROPER CAUSE” TEST—A TEST THAT MAKES NO RATIONAL SENSE BUT SERVED FOR WELL OVER A CENTURY AS A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR EXERTING MAXIMUM CONTROL OVER THE ALLOCATION OF LICENSES TO RESIDENTS. THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED REVIEW OF THE CASE, NYSRPA VS. BRUEN, AND STRUCK DOWN THE STATE’S “PROPER CAUSE” REQUIREMENT.
THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT THEREUPON AMENDED ITS HANDGUN LAW. ON A SUPERFICIAL LEVEL, THE COURT APPEARED TO COMPLY WITH THE BRUEN RULINGS. THE STATE SIMPLY STRUCK DOWN “PROPER CAUSE” WHICH THE COURT COMPELLED IT TO DO, BUT THEN SIMPLY SUBSTITUTED “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” FOR “PROPER CAUSE.” THIS WASN’T A PERFECT FIX BUT THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT BOLSTERED IT BY CRAFTING A NEW LAW THAT SEVERELY HANDICAPPED AREAS OF THE STATE WHERE A PERSON CAN LAWFULLY CARRY A HANDGUN FOR SELF-DEFENSE. HENCE, IT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE BRUEN RULINGS. IT WAS ALL PRETENSE. LIKELY THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT, UNDER GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL, KNEW THE PUBLIC WOULDN’T BE FOOLED. SHE KNEW A CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE’S AMENDMENTS TO ITS HANDGUN LAW WOULD BE FORTHCOMING. BUT SHE ALSO KNOW THAT ANY CHALLENGE TO THE LAW WOULD TAKE TIME, MONEY, AND EFFORT ON THE PART OF ANY CHALLENGER TO THE STATE’S AMENDMENTS, AND TIME, MONEY, AND EFFORT WOULD ALWAYS BE ON THE STATE’S SIDE.
A CHALLENGE CAME SWIFTLY. THE CAPTION OF THE CASE WOULD CHANGE SEVERAL TIMES. THE CASE REMAINED THE SAME: ANTONYUK VS. JAMES.
THE CENTRAL THEME OF THIS ESSAY IS THAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, ETERNAL, NATURAL LAW RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS RESTS BEYOND THE NAYSAYERS CLAIMS, HOWEVER ERRONEOUS, THAT ARMED CITIZENS AMPLIFY THE PROBLEM OF THIS THING THEY REFER TO AS “GUN VIOLENCE,” BY VIRTUE THAT ARMED CITIZENS ADDS TO THE NUMBER OF FIREARMS IN THE NATION AND THAT SO MANY MORE GUNS IN CIRCULATION COMPOUNDS THE TENDENCY FOR MORE “GUN VIOLENCE” EVEN AS THOSE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS ARE NOT THE DIRECT CAUSE OF “GUN VIOLENCE.” THAT IS SIMPLY A MAKEWEIGHT TO RATIONALIZE THE DESIRE OF ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT PROPONENTS AND ZEALOTS FOR ENACTING MORE AND MORE INCREASINGLY RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS TARGETING THE AVERAGE, RATIONAL, RESPONSIBLE, LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. THERE IS A MAJOR INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT TO TRANSFORM THE UNITED STATES—THE MOST SUCCESSFUL, AND POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH TO SUBMIT TO THE INTERNATIONAL LIBERAL RULES BASED ORDER—THAT REQUIRES ALL NATION STATES TO ACCEPT THE SUPREMACY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OVER THE NATION’S LAWS AND TO INCULCATE A NEW BELIEF SYSTEM AND A NEW SET OF VALUES THAT ARE ANTITHETICAL TO OUR BASIC PRINCIPLES GROUNDED THE SANCTITY AND THE INVIOLABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL OVER THE STATE (OVER GOVERNMENT). THIS COUNTRY’S BILL OF RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY THE RIGHT TO DISSENT AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS UPON WHICH OUR GREATNESS AS A NATION RESTS.
AS WITH THOSE STATES THAT ENACT COUNTLESS DRACONIAN LAWS RESTRICTING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE ON THE GROUND THAT SACRIFICING THESE THINGS BENEFITS SOCIETY AS A WHOLE—WHICH THEY PRESUME IS OR OUGHT TO BE THE PRIMARY GOAL OF A MODERN WORLD—EVEN IF IT INFRINGES ON THE FREEDOM AND SAFETY OF AN INNOCENT INDIVIDUAL, SACRIFICED FOR THE “GREATER” GOOD, THEN THE SACRIFICE OF THE INNOCENT INDIVIDUAL IS AN ACCEPTABLE LOSS. OUR PRINCIPLES FIND THIS IDEA ANATHEMA. YET, IT IS THE COMMON CURRENCY OF THE DAY PROPOUNDED AND ACCEPTED AS THE NEW GOSPEL TO BE THRUST ON OUR COUNTRY EVEN IF MANY AMERICANS MUST COME OVER TO THAT SIDE, KICKING AND SCREAMING.
GOVERNMENT, THE PRESS, SOCIAL MEDIA, NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOs), PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS, THE ACADEMIA, THOSE IN ENTERTAINMENT—— EXCORIATE THE ENTIRETY NOT JUST THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT THE WHOLE OF THE CONSTITUTION. GOVERNMENT, THE PRESS, SOCIAL MEDIA, NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOs), PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS, THE ACADEMIA, THOSE IN ENTERTAINMENT—— EXCORIATE NOT JUST THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT THE WHOLE OF THE CONSTITUTION. Of course, members of these Parties and affiliated groups hold to a belief system broadly falling into the category aptly referred to as “COLLECTIVISM,” a philosophical outlook embracing and drawing upon and infusing through a number of broad areas and fields, and institutions upon which those areas and fields are based: politics, economics, sociology, psychology, political science, to name a few.
COLLECTIVISM is incompatible with the belief system upon which the U.S. CONSTITUTION is grounded: INDIVIDUALISM.
But now, many who do not ascribe, overtly, at least, to the extreme views as propounded by outright Socialist, Marxists, Communists, Leninists and the like, also expound arguments against or forcefully remonstrate against the Constitution. Yet, those that do so, fail to realize that an attack on the Constitution—the primary components of it, the Articles and the Bill of Rights—are impliedly, if unknowingly, attacking a Free Constitutional Republic at its core. In other words, there is no scholarly, pleasant way, to suggest redrafting a blueprint of our Nation—let alsone dissolving the entirety of it with the aim of crafting a presumed “better one”—without destroying the essence of our Country: ITS HISTORY, HERITAGE, ETHOS, MORALITY, CORE VALUES—OUR NATION’S VERY PSYCHE.
We provide links below of websites suggesting ways to revise (as they wrongly assume, revitalize) the Constitution. Note, these ideas are of recent—21st Century. These links that we provide for your perusal are in no particular order and are but a handful selected at random. But, they all coalesce around the idea that our Constitution is OLD, and therefore archaic, requiring an overhaul, like remodeling a house, as if abstract ideas upon which a great Nation is based and that has functioned well for two and one-half centuries has an end-date, an expiration date—or ought to. The reader will note that the last two articles refer to a statement by the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia asserting, when asked, “off the cuff,” whether the Constitution should be amended. What can be gleaned from the light exchange between journalist and jurist is this, as posted by the National Constitution Center:
Ten years ago in a public conversation, journalist Marvin Kalb asked the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia what he would do if he could change the U.S. Constitution. Scalia replied that he would make the Constitution easier to change.
Scalia told Kalb that based on his calculations (which some have questioned), less than 2 percent of the population could prevent an amendment to the Constitution. “It ought to be hard, but not that hard,” Scalia said. [Emphasis our own]
If there is something more substantive to that conversation, we would like to hear about it.
But, truth be told, Scalia can be something of a wag, and the Leftist ABA recounts this much, which suggests that Scalia, like Trump, often likes to play mind-games with fools, and the fools take Trump at his word, like the fools they are, not realizing that it is all in jest.
And Scalia, too, was being facetious, hardly serious, and we need not spend time analyzing things said obviously in jest. But—perhaps realizing that a moron might take him seriously, he made plain that he was just kidding around. The ABA, at least, makes that plain. Other accounts do not. See article from ABAJournal.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg offered their views Thursday [April 21, 2014] on how they would amend the Constitution, if given the chance.
Ginsburg said she would pass the Equal Rights Amendment while Scalia said he would change the amendments provision to make amendments easier, report Legal Times and the Washington Whispers page of U.S. News & World Report. They spoke at the National Press Club in a session moderated by Marvin Kalb.
Ginsburg said a constitutional safeguard is important because legislation giving equal rights to women can be repealed. “So I would like my granddaughters, when they pick up the Constitution, to see that notion—that women and men are persons of equal stature—I’d like them to see that is a basic principle of our society.”
Scalia said fewer than 2 percent of the population could prevent enactment of a constitutional amendment. “It ought to be hard, but not that hard,” he said. But he does not favor holding a constitutional convention. “Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?” Scalia said. [Emphasis our own]
Hat tip to How Appealing.
The ABA obviously realized that the Justice was talking in jest. What is not amusing is that less than two years after the session at the National Press Club and approximately nine months before the U.S. Presidential Election of 2016, Justice Scalia would be found dead at a resort in Texas, of “apparently natural causes” says The Texas Tribune. [Emphasis our own] There was no autopsy and the circumstances of the Justice’s death is murky, and remains so to this day. See article in the New York Post.
So the late Justice was simply joking, but many scholars would take a chainsaw to the Constitution if given half the chance.
One must wonder whether this zeal of some, for undertaking an extensive remodeling project or renovation of the U.S. Constitution that exploded in the last fifteen years or so, is just something that happened spontaneously and coincidentally, or if there is something sinister behind this, coming as it has with such intensity in the space of such a short space of time.
***********************************
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/sep/11/we-the-people-is-it-time-to-rewrite-the-us-constit/
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-united-states-unamendable-constitution
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/01/we-need-talk-about-amending-constitution/677065/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/04/opinion/amend-constitution.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/constitution-experts-make/story?id=18470122
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-difficult-should-the-constitution-be-to-amend https://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/blog/2022/02/01/we-the-people/
https://opinion.inquirer.net/111746/should-we-amend-the-constitution-2
https://opinion.inquirer.net/111746/should-we-amend-the-constitution-2
https://constitutioncentr.org/blog/how-difficult-should-the-constitution-be-to-amend
*************************************
What is chilling about this fervent desire that has taken hold of so many scholars, is that some conservative scholars are hawking the same thing, operating from the same premises as the Radical Leftist groups and ostensibly Moderate Progressives, starting with the idea that the Constitution is “old,” “archaic,” “anachronistic,” “a relic,” “by-gone,” “antiquated,” “outmoded,” “obsolete.”
See, e.g., the article, titled “Our Outdated Constitution,” subtitled, “How our founding document undermines effective government—and why we need a more powerful presidency,” published on June 2, 2016, by the ostensibly politically Conservative organization,” Hoover Institute,
The article, served as an introduction and promotion of a book that was published on April 26, 2016, argues the need for redrafting the Constitution to operate effectively in a Country that is much more complex today than at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified. The authors, Terry M. Moe, a Senior Fellow of the Hoover of the Hoover Institution (with William G. Howell), writes, in pertinent part,
Why is the nation so poorly governed? This is the question that we address in our new book, Relic. What we show is that the fundamentals of an answer can be traced to the Constitution—which, for all its admirable qualities, imposes a structure of government that has long been outdated, and is ill-suited to modern times.
Congress is right at the center of the nation’s modern-day dysfunction. As a decision-maker, it is inexcusably bad. It is immobilized, impotent, and utterly incapable of taking effective action on behalf of the nation. A common refrain among today’s cognoscenti is that polarization is to blame—and that, were a more moderate brand of politics to emerge, Congress could get back to the good old days when it did a fine job of making public policy, and all would be well. But all would not be well, because the good old days were not good.
With some exceptions, Congress has never been capable of crafting effective policy responses to the nation’s problems, a fact that is well documented (see, for instance, Peter Schuck’s comprehensive assessment of the evidence in Why Government Fails So Often). Polarization has made a bad situation worse, but it is not the underlying cause of Congress’s core inadequacies—which are baked into the institution and not of recent vintage. Congress is an ineffective policymaker because it is wired to be that way by the Constitution, whose design ensures that legislators are electorally tied to their local jurisdictions and highly responsive to special interests. Congress is not wired to solve national problems in the national interest. It is wired to allow hundreds of parochial legislators to promote their own political welfare through special-interest politics.
With Congress’s pathologies rooted in the Constitution, the ultimate problem is the Constitution itself. The founders crafted a government 225 years ago for a simple agrarian society of just four million people, some 700,000 of whom were slaves. Of the free population, 95 percent were farmers. Government was not expected to do much, and the founders—mainly concerned about avoiding “tyranny of the majority”—purposely designed a byzantine government that couldn’t do much, separating authority across the various branches of government and filling it with veto points that made coherent policy action exceedingly difficult.
When government has been able to act, moreover, congressional lawmaking has typically led—due to the built-in nature of legislators’ incentives—to cobbled-together policy concoctions crafted to attract disparate legislators with disparate interests into the necessary support coalitions, not to provide the most effective means of addressing social problems. (See, for example, Steven Brill’s account of the Affordable Care Act, America’s Bitter Pill.) Legislators and special interests have gotten what they wanted. But their political intent has not been to create policies that are serious, coherent, well integrated, intellectually justifiable solutions to the problems they allegedly address—and the result is that problems have festered and rarely been resolved.
This approach to governance may have been fine for the late 1700s. But that era is long gone, and it isn’t coming back. Within 100 years, the nation grew to fifteen times its original population, stretched all the way to the Pacific, and was developing explosively into a modern industrial society—generating countless problems along the way, from rapacious monopoly to tainted meat to unregulated drugs, that the founders never anticipated and their antiquated government was never designed to solve. It was already a relic of the past. . . .
What can we do? A practical strategy is to seek out small, low-risk constitutional changes that promise big pay-offs for effective government. Here, specifically, is an approach that makes eminently good sense: with Congress the prime source of dysfunction, it should be moved to the periphery of the policymaking process where its pathologies can do less damage—and presidents should be moved to the center where they can do the most good.
Why presidents? Because their wiring is very, very different from Congress’s, and actually propels them to be the champions of effective government. This is so regardless of whether they are liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans. Quite unlike most legislators, presidents think in national terms about national problems, and their overriding concern for their historical legacies drives them to seek durable solutions to pressing national problems. Needless to say, they are not always right or successful. And conservatives would seek very different policy solutions than liberals. But all presidents aspire to be the nation’s problem-solvers-in-chief. And if policymaking power can be shifted in their direction—and away from Congress—the prospects for effective government will be much improved. . . .
But what, you might ask, if Donald Trump were to become president? Or Bernie Sanders? The fact is, even if a president favored policies you consider extreme or troubling, fast track would hardly make that president a dictator. Both houses of Congress would still need to give their separate consent before any proposal becomes law—policy would be a three-way decision, not a presidential decision—and the court system and separation of powers would remain intact, along with the Bill of Rights. The entire constellation of checks and balances would continue to limit what presidents could do, much as it has for more than 200 years.
To be fair, we have not read the book, “Relic,” so our comments of it can only apply to and are meant to apply to the article, a synopsis of what we infer to be the salient points of the book. And we note that the book was published during Trump’s First Term in Office, and four years before Joe Biden was ensconced in the Oval Office through the machinations of the Democrat Party and likely a slew of powerful sinister forces.
Hence, the author could not have reasonably foreseen and could not have imagined the extent of damage Congress could do to a sitting President. Thus, his remarks that Congress is dysfunctional, only presumes that Congress at worse, can stall the operation of Government. The author says,
Congress is right at the center of the nation’s modern-day dysfunction. As a decision-maker, it is inexcusably bad. It is immobilized, impotent, and utterly incapable of taking effective action on behalf of the nation.
First, the author fails to consider that Congress is quite capable of doing much more damage than bringing Government to a grinding halt. As the Democrat Party has aptly demonstrated, it is capable of upending Government—misusing the taxpayers money to harm their duly elected leader, preventing the President from following through on his campaign promises, and from faithfully executing the Laws of the Land as Congress deliberately and unconscionably impedes the President from performing his duties and complying with his Article II obligations. That Trump could accomplish several of his objectives and make headway on many others in the face of constant obstacles says this President has incredible fortitude and stamina and strength of will—the very qualities that most men lack.
Second, the author of the book “Relic” fails to consider that, while the President is the Chief Executive of the MASSIVE BUREACRACY, the many Departments, Bureaus, and Agencies, including, POLICE, MILITARY, INTELLIGENCE, among many others, compel the conclusion that this BUREACRACY, this ADMINISTRATIVE STATE, is a beast. It operates as it wants.
Moreover, what the ADMINISTRATIVE STATE WANTS is often at odds with what the President and the American people want and what is truly in the Country’s best interests. And, the public has little to no recourse, for the THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE—this FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY—isn’t accountable to the people. This BEHEMOTH is impenetrable, inscrutable, enigmatic.
This ADMINISTRATIVE STATE (FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY) that the public DOES NOT SEE, AND ISN’T ALLOWED TO SEE, exists as a Government WITHIN A Government that the public is allowed to see (just an iota of the “OPEN” Government).
THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE EXISTS AS A SHADOW SPECTOR—LURKING BENEATH GOVERNMENT AND DOING WHAT IT WANTS.
If the Shadow Government happens to agree with the President’s policy positions and initiatives, then all is well and good. However, if the Shadow Government takes exception to those policy positions, then it is capable of doing substantial damage to the President and to the people. THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT CAN SLOW WALK OR IGNORE THOSE POLICY DIRECTIVES OR THE IT CAN COUNTER-MAND THOSE POLICY DIRECTIVES—DOING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DIRECTED THE GOVERNMENT TO DO.
TO SLOW-WALK, OR IGNORE, OR COUNTERMAND A DIRECTIVE OF A PRESIDENT AMOUNTS TO ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND ACTIONABLE FEDERAL CRIMES AMOUNTING TO TREASON, IN WORST CASES, AND, IN OTHERWISE TO SERIOUS CRIMES OF SEDITION, ESPIONAGE, AND SABOTAGE.
During his first term in Office—Trump a strong-willed, and highly intelligent and capable leader of the Country, well aware enemies skulked about throughout the EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
These enemies, often within his midst were many, and they were enraged the Electorate had voted him into Office. But, during this First Term, although a quick-study, he had much to learn on the fly, and his naïvety of the SHADOW GOVERNMENT he could not have perceived without a previous understanding of the inner workings of that HIDDEN GOVERNMENT, but even the OUTER GOVERNMENT that he could see required him to gain understanding of matters of Government that one could not learn from a textbook.
And his enemies took advantage of him during that FIRST TERM IN OFFICE. Trump had much to learn and eight years to do so. He did not make mistakes in his SECOND TERM.
Lastly, the author of “Relic” mentions in passing that “. . . the court system and separation of powers would remain intact, along with the Bill of Rights.” [Emphasis our Own]. Is the author assuming that the court system is operating efficiently, effectively, expeditiously, and would continue to do so? This, notion, we feel, from what we can observe, is presumptuous in the extreme.
Securing the efficacy of the Bill of Rights is among the Court’s most important and sacred functions and obligations, implied in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The first clause of Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution, says,
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; . . . .”
THE HIGH COURT DOES NOT APPEAR UP TO BE UP TO THE TASK. THIS IS PARTICULARLY UNFORTUNATE AND DISHEARTENING, AND MARKEDLY DISTURBING AND DISCONCERTING, GIVEN THE SHEER NUMBER OF VITALLY IMPORTANT CASES THAT HAVE BUBBLED UP TO THE COURT THIS TERM. THE CASES INVOLVE ROGUE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS THAT BLATANTLY FAIL TO ADHERE TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION’S DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND ALL TOO MANY STATES THAT BRAZENLY IGNORE PRECEDENTIAL U.S. SUPREME COURT RULINGS ON THE VITAL SECOND AMENDMENT “RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,” “A RIGHT THAT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” MANY STATES, INCLUDING NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, ILLINOIS, CALIFORNIA, HAWAII, AND OTHERS, ROUTINELY IGNORE BOTH SECOND AMENDMENT STRICTURE AND HOLDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LANDMARK CASES: HELLER, MCDONALD, AND BRUEN.
THIS FAILURE OF STATES AND LOWER FEDERAL DISTRICT AND APPELLATE COURTS, AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS, TO ADHERE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND TO SUPREME COURT CASE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE IS SO WIDESPREAD AND ILLUSTRATES SUCH CURIOUS CONSISTENCY, THAT A PERSON MUST SUSPECT UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL COLLUSION AMONG INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND JUSTICE TO UNDERMINE OUR FREE REPUBLIC. AND, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SEEMS TO BE INDIFFERENT TO THIS.
FORCES BOTH WITHIN OUR NATION, AND OUTSIDE IT, ARE COLLABORATING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY FROM WITHIN. IF NOTHING IS DONE TO CONSTRAIN THIS, THE ACT OF DOING LITTLE OR NOTHING SERVES TO SUSTAIN THE INCREMENTAL DISMANTLING OF OUR REPUBLIC.
The salient tactic of these malevolent forces in accomplishing their goal to destroy a Free Republic, involves constraining Americans’ sacred right of freedom of thought and freedom to bear arms.
This is where the U.S. Supreme Court comes in. The High Court can stop these efforts at destroying our Country from within.
The Supreme Court can buttress our fundamental God-Given rights when a case or controversy comes to the Court on appeal.
Yet, to date, the Court has done little to protect the BOR, without which our Nation is open to Tyranny. Why is the Court remiss in their sacred obligation to protect the U.S. Constitution?
There is no excuse for their reluctance to strengthen American’s basic, unalienable rights. The Court would likely disagree. But, there is evidence of the Court’s failure to do its job, especially in the area of the Second Amendment.
Several prominent cases have come up on a writ of certiorari to the Court. Two of these cases, namely Antonyuk vs. James and Snope vs. Brown, deal with the very core of the Second Amendment. They demand review.
But the Court has demurred.
Snope involves the issue of whether a State can deny access to semiautomatic weapons that are in common use.
The Court made clear in District of Columbia vs. Heller, the first truly landmark Second Amendment case in over 200 years, that firearms in “COMMON USE” by the American people, fall within the core of the Second Amendment. The failure of the Court to take up the Snope case—a direct challenge to a State’s disregard of Heller, amounts not only to an attack on the Second Amendment, but also an attack on the Court’s own precedential rulings.
Failure to take up the case and strike down an unconstitutional State law weakens the Second Amendment, and, more, harms the Court’s credibility.
The Court also failed to take up the Antonyuk case. The failure to do so is even more devastating to the Second Amendment Right, and damning to the Court’s credibility because Bruen arose as a direct challenge to the Constitutionality of New York’s HANDGUN LAW.
Instead of complying with those rulings, the New York Government, under Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul and the State Legislature in Albany, New York, dominated and controlled by Democrats brazenly defied the Court’s Bruen rulings.
The Antonyuk case arises on a challenge to the constitutionality of amendments the New York Government made to the Handgun Law.
The amendments are the State’s answer to the Court’s rulings in the NYSRPA vs. Bruen—the third Landmark case. In Bruen the Court struck down, as facially unconstitutional, the State’s “Proper Cause” standard that the New York Government enacted in 1913, two years after it instituted handgun licensing. The aim of handgun licensing is to constrain the right of the American people to keep and bear arms. Handgun licensing has caused a legal quagmire in our jurisprudence as the application of it is inconsistent with operation of the Second Amendment.
APPLICATION OF HANDGUN LICENSING ILLEGALY INTERPOSES ITSELF BETWEEN A FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHT, AND A CITIZEN’S EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT. HANDGUN LICENSING IS FOR THAT REASON, LIKELY, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE COURT NEVER ISSUED A CLEAR RULING ON THAT, WISHING TO AVOID DEALING WITH IT. INSTEAD THE COURT TINKERS AROUND THE EDGES.
In Bruen, the Court left handgun licensing intact—refusing to take up that salient issue—but it did resolve the narrow issue directed to the Constitutionality of the State’s use of “Proper Cause.”
An applicant who desires to secure a New York concealed handgun carry license for self-defense, when out in public, must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the licensing examiner, that the applicant “extraordinary need” for the license, that is to say, need for armed self-defense that extends beyond the danger that an average New Yorker faces when out and about in an inherently dangerous locale, that New York City unequivocally and indisputably is.
The Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of New York Law that requires a person to provide a reason to carry a firearm for self-defense when self-defense should be reason enough and presumed when an person files an application for a carry license.
The Court agreed with the Petitioners and struck down “Proper Cause as facially unconstitutional. Since striking down the standard logically entails entails a finding that the right to armed self-defense is integral to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the Court not only struck down “Proper Cause” as unconstitutional, but held that armed self-defense falls within the core of the Second Amendment and that right does not begin and end at the doorstep to one’s home. It extends when that person is out in public, which, it is reasonable to infer, places a person in a more precarious situation to life and well-being than when one is at home.
The Court’s rulings meant that New York cannot require a person to justify his need to carry a handgun for self-defense. Self-defense is baked into” the fundamental right to armed self-defense and can therefore be presumed as reason enough to be issued a concealed handgun carry license.
The New York Hochul Government was outraged at the ruling.
Striking down the “Proper Cause” requirement severely weakens the State’s Handgun Law that had been enforced for over 110 years. The New York Government would not countenance a devastating defeat that essentially guts a Handgun Law that had for over century served to strangle exercise of the fundamental right to armed self-defense in New York.
The Government crafted a workaround to soften the blow to its Handgun Law. Anticipating a negative ruling after Oral Argument that took place in November 2021, and given the complexity of the amendments to the State’s Handgun Law, the Government had likely worked on crafting amendments to the Law for seven months with the aim of providing an adequate workaround for “Proper Cause”—and one that would appear, at a glance to comply with Bruen, even though the Hochul Government would have certainly expected that the public wouldn’t be fooled and would challenge the amendments. And the public wasn’t fooled. A challenge came at once—within two weeks of the Senate passing the amendments to the Handgun Law and Hochul’s signing the amendments into law.
The amendments that the New York State Senate enacted and that Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law, on the same day—which was one scarcely week after the Court came down with its rulings— effectively negated the import of the High Court’s rulings.
New York handgun Licensees saw through the State’s ruse and challenged the State’s amendments (called the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” or CCIA). Companion cases were filed in other New York Federal District Courts and were merged with Antonyuk. Antonyuk is now well over two years old, and remains unresolved even though the salient issues have been fully briefed by both the Petitioners and the Respondent State. A plethora of amicus briefs have also been filed.
A second Petition for Writ of Certiorari came up to the Court, with the expectation the Court would hear it, as the Court provided to the Parties, every indication it would. The Court did not. No reason was given. The denial of review was terse—merely a notation to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, one of many other denials. Yet, the Antonyuk case was no ordinary case to come up to the Court.
Those states that plainly, abhor the NATURAL LAW RIGHT codified in the Second Amendment HAVE ROUTINELY DEFIED the Court’s prior landmark Second Amendment rulings.
One would think the Court would take to task these rogue States. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would do so. Apparently, the Chief Justice and Trump’s three nominees do not feel the pressing need or, otherwise, are afraid of releasing another landmark decision. This reticence only emboldens renegade states and Anti-Second Amendment members of Congress to continue to defy the High Court’s Second Amendment rulings.
The U.S. Supreme Court has the authority and the obligation to compel compliance on matters involving the citizenry’s sacred rights, but, since the death of the late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, the Court has done little to strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This failure allows Anti-Second Amendment zealots in Congress, and in Anti-Second Amendment States, and in Anti-Second Amendment courts to encroach on this sacrosanct, inviolate right and to ignore outright, or utilize tortuous, convoluted legal and illogical reasoning to avoid complying with the holdings and crucial dicta of the High Court’s three seminal Second Amendment cases.
This lack of further High Court scrutiny of unconstitutional actions by the States and the Federal Government, and by lower State and Federal Courts that stamp their imprimatur on unconstitutional Government action, suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court is either sympathetic to these actions and, hence, refuses to reign in the unconstitutional actions of government that continually and contemptuously defy Supreme Court rulings and the plain import of fundamental rights as codified in the BOR, or the Court is simply afraid of the States and of Congress, and public opinion and so allows unconstitutional swipes at fundamental rights to continue. But the High Court should contain its concerns or fears and carry out its principal duty: To defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet, the Court continues to shirk its responsibility.
The Court’s position on our Nation’s Second Amendment right is untenable.
The Court’s dismissive attitude comes across to the public and to Anti-Second Amendment actors in the Federal Government and the States as a sign of cowardice.
This failure of the Court to defend the Bill of Rights comes across as callous disregard to the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENRY.
THIS FAILURE TO ACT IS INJURIOUS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND TO THE COURT’S REPUTATION. AND, ULTIMATELY, THIS FAILURE TO ACT WHEN IT OUGHT TO ACT, WEAKENS THE FOUNDATION OF A FREE REPUBLIC.
The constitutionality and legality of every Government act impacting CITIZENS’ VOLITION and ACTION involving their FUNDAMENTAL and UNALIENABLE and ETERNAL and UNMODIFIABLE Rights MUST BE reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.
President Trump recognizes this. In an article published in USA Today, titled, “Trump DOJ wants Supreme Court to bring down hammer on gun rules” and reposted in MSN news, Trump has asked the Supreme Court to deal with rogue states that impair citizens’ exercise of their right to armed self-defense.
Those Government actions that constrain or curtail the CORE of our Fundamental Rights must be struck down.
The BILL OF RIGHTS is a statement of, and binds our Nation to, the PRECEPTS OF INDIVIDUALISM. Intimated in THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, the TRUTH contained therein became an insurmountable force capable of defeating the British Empire, a formidable, mighty, and seemingly unconquerable foe.
Upon defeating the British Empire, America’s Patriots, its FIRST CITIZENS, utilized The Declaration Of Independence to formulate a practical framework for the nascent Republic.
The Constitution has a bipartite structure, comprising the Articles and the Bill of Rights.
The Articles provide the framework for a centralized (FEDERAL) Government and define the POWERS and AUTHORITY of the THREE SEPARATE, CO-EQUAL BRANCHES. Nine of the Thirteen States ratified the Constitution on June 21, 1788. The Bill Of Rights came after, ratified on December 15, 1791.
See article on ratification published on constitutioncenter.org.
See the article posted on History On The Net.
Why was the Bill of Rights added to the constitution? . . . Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Magna Carta (1215). . . . Since the most powerful states in the Union would not have ratified the Constitution if not for the Bill of Rights, the Founding generation would be its most ardent defenders. Gun control should never be considered; the “Fairness Doctrine” should never reach the floor of Congress for a vote; the Patriot Act, which allows the government to use unconstitutional powers, should be revised, amended, or placed in the trash-can; religious liberty, including the free expression of religious faith during government functions and prayer in public schools, should be defended; the burden of proof in a case involving “violations “of federal “regulations” should be placed on the government, not the accused; federal disregard for private property should cease. In short, federal activity should be severely curtailed.
****************************
See also https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/bill-of-rights; https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-day-the-constitution-was-ratified
https://www.history.com/articles/articles-of-confederation
https://www.history.com/articles/articles-of-confederation
https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/bill-of-rights/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-States-Constitution
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/how-did-it-happen
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html
https://www.americanhistorycentral.com/entries/bill-of-rights/
https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/bill-of-rights/ *
https://nccs.net/blogs/americas-founding-documents/bill-of-rights-amendments-1-10
https://nccs.net/blogs/americas-founding-documents/bill-of-rights-amendments-1-10
https://www.history.com/articles/articles-of-confederation
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-States-Constitution
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resource/fafd-home/fafd-fed-antifed-bor-debate/
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-ushistory1/chapter/the-federalists-and-the-bill-of-rights/
https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/bill-of-rights/
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resource/fafd-home/fafd-fed-antifed-bor-debate/
https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/bill-of-rights/
****************************************
Where MAN-MADE LAW conflicts with GOD’S MORAL CODE, the Moral Code overrides man-made law. THAT IS WHAT FOUNDERS OF OUR FREE REPUBLIC BELIEVED, AND THAT IS WHAT MOST OF US, AMERICANS, TODAY, BELIEVE AND HAVE INTERNALIZED—TO THE CONTINUED SUCCESS OF OUR NATION AND THE WELL-BEING OF OUR PEOPLE.
Reflecting GOD’S LAW and WILL the BOR resides above and is superior to all MAN-MADE LAW. It is paramount and is not subject to revocation, abrogation, modification or meddling with. That it occurs with such frequency today, does not make this desecration right or proper or acceptable, even it such seems so too many people. That this defilement occurs casually and has become commonplace is no reason to concede to it or take this to be morally right or legally sound.
Yet, there are Americans who act with casual disregard to our Rights, or taken an active part in loudly exclaiming and proclaiming the BOR to be outdated and no longer relevant in a changing Country and a changing world and that much should be said of the entirety of the Constitution.
There are many such people in our Country who think thus.
They include politicians, pundits, podcasters, jurists, and scholars, historians, bureaucrats, and members of the polity at large who, mesmerized by, and sympathetic to the nonsense spouted, suspend all reasoning, mindlessly echoing the simplistic sentiments they hear from the chorus.
Many people assume wrongly, that, as a component of the U.S. Constitution, the BOR must be subject to amendment, just as any other portion of the Constitution is subject to amendment. We have discussed this matter earlier in this essay. Let us explore this notion a bit further.
It is true Article V establishes both the authority to amend the Constitution and the steps involved in accomplishing it.
For more information on this topic, see articles at the below links:
**************************************
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html.
******************************
Those malevolent forces, secretly at work in our society, intent on destroying a Free Republic desire to carry this off quietly—using the mechanisms of the Constitution itself either through the Electoral Process, or through the statutory or bureaucratic process, or even by Constitutional amendment if they gained enough control of the Congress and the states.
But our Elections are messy affairs, and even when conducted with integrity, don’t ensure the outcomes, even if many members of the Electorate, bombarded by incessant, surreptitious, mind-numbing, relentless propaganda are receptive to the inane messaging.
Easily distracted by irrelevant matters, operating in unison via a mob mentality, much of the populace robotically votes against its own interests and that of the Country. The results are catastrophic —disruptive to the maintenance of a free Constitutional Republic.
We have seen the results of this before. The Democrats and their shadowy donors and funding apparatuses would not leave the Electoral Process to chance.
Every attempt to remove President Trump from Office during his first term, failed.
Determined to defeat Trump from serving a second term in office, that would him to implement his policies to return our Country to its historical and cultural roots as he promised—the malevolent forces that seek our Nation’s Destruction, realized the need to manipulate the Electoral to prevent Trump’s assured election in 2020. And they succeeded.
They seated a stooge in the Oval Office: a demented, dementia-riddled, physically and emotionally weak, morally corrupt, selfish, and self-absorbed harlequin, who would do whatever his lords and masters asked of him. Realizing an urgency, they returned to their game plan in earnest, reversing Trump’s many accomplishments of his first term: economically, socially, geopolitically, societally.
The forces that crush would bring the Nation to ruin as quickly as possible, thereby making it near impossible for Trump to repair the damage if he were ever to return to Office.
Working with frenetic energy, realizing they had very little time to accomplish their agenda, lest the American public reject their aims—the dissolution of the Republic—they opened our borders wide, shepherding millions of unassimilable aliens from a multitude of third world countries to flood through our borders and throughout the Country. The demands of these hordes of illegal aliens were infinite, our resources limited.
On the International stage, the puppet masters instituted polices designed to weaken the United States, geopolitically, and weakening our military. They brought shame to our Country in the eyes of both foe and ostensible friend, as they had designed to do. Our economy was in shambles. Our cities and towns neglected. Our Criminal Justice System in shambles, our legal system devolving to a system of ad hoc law—meaning no legal structure in place. Our basic rights ignored or routinely degraded. No longer constrained to keep their terrible, horrific plans from the American people——indeed, they could not, so extensive was the damage, that these malevolent forces wrought, they could no longer keep their agenda and aims to destroy the Country a secret from the people. Four years later, the Country found itself in chaos and abject ruin.
As rank and file Americans got wind of the extent of the deception, and as the RNC, under new leadership, shut down the mechanisms that Congressional Democrats and their agents had employed to purloin the 2020 Election, preventing a new dimwit and patsy, from completing the agenda to tear down our society that commenced with Barack Obama, that would have continued under Hillary Clinton had the Electorate voted her into Office as the smug Destructors of the Nation had presumed would happen but did not, they continued with another dimwit, after Biden expended his shelf-life. They thrust Kamala Harris, on the public and Democrats obediently voted for her. With her in Office, the forces that crush would complete their agenda, disemboweling our Nation. That would mean eradication of the Constitution and the subjugation of the citizenry. But this would not occur.
The Electorate abhorred what four years had wrought for the Country, under Biden and under Obama and that the Country rebounded under Trump.
Despite the massive power that the puppet masters exerted over our Government, over many of the States, and over our institutions, they could not prevent a resounding victory for the people and the Nation when Trump came into Office. And he went to work like a prize race horse out of the gate. By cleaning up the mess of the prior Administration, he also cast a bright light on the agenda of that corrupt Administration and the shadowy forces behind it. Trump thrust the insanity of the whole corrupt enterprise before the public.
The puppet-masters learned that unlawful, unethical manipulation of the Nation’s Electoral Process had proved inadequate for continuing in power. The FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC would regain its prior statute. The Forces that seek our Nation’s demise would have to look elsewhere to take Trump down.
But the forces that seek our destruction are as tenacious as Donald Trump. He is unstoppable, a positive good, and a force to be reckoned with. “Lawfare” failed to convince the public to deny him a second term in office. The public saw through the misapplication of the judicial process and were appalled by it and by those that used it in the attempt to destroy the life, honor, and finances of the man.
At their wits end the forces that crush resorted to the one tactic they sought to avoid: assassination. But, fortunately, by the Grace of God, they failed in that too.
Trump came into Office with purpose and working with the same feverish intensity of our Nation’s foes—from January 20, 2020 to January 20 2024—he began to set thing aright for our Nation, Constitution, and People on the day of his inauguration. Indeed, he had worked months before on curtailing the horrendous executive orders and actions of his predecessor. On day one, Trump sprang into action.
But, even with Trump in command of the Executive Branch, and with Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress (if only barely), there are destructive forces in Government that have placed obstacles in Trump’s path. They had decades before taken control of the massive Government Bureaucracy, the Administrative State, that has a life of its own.
Although the Constitution says nothing about a massive Bureaucracy perpetually existing to confound the operations of the President, elected by the people, it is here to stay and it is a boon to those powerful interests to maintain control of the Nation and its people.
The Framers of the Constitution could not imagine the manner in which this Federal Government could amass so much power, and yet hide that power from the people, and usurp power and use that power and the public’s own hard-earned money, against them.
But, among the Framers, the Antifederalists envisioned the danger a massive Federal Government would one-day pose to the existence of a Free Republic even if they could not foresee the shape of that monster.
The Antifederalists would be shocked and appalled by both the elaborate complexity of and dire impact the Government has had on and citizenry.
Likely, the Federalists, who envisioned a strong central government would no less be abhorred at the danger posed to a Free Republic, by this Behemoth.
Weaknesses existent in the Constitution’s Articles, allow scurrilous people, both inside the Government and outside it to take control of it.
And the monolithic BUREAUCRACY IN LEAGUE with Congressional Democrats—those who now brazenly, even proudly, boast of using the phrase “Democrat Socialists” (a.k.a. Marxist-Communists), as a descriptor for them, and those other Democrats (such that remain) who, while considering themselves politically “moderate” but plainly completely cowed by them—continue, willingly, even gleefully to undermine Trump and, by extension, thereby undermine the will of the American people who elected Trump to serve a second term.
Fortunately, the Founders made difficult any attempt to amend the Constitution—thus preventing a treacherous, treasonous Congress and such treacherous, treasonous States that exist from affecting the disassembling of the Constitution, by use of mechanisms in the Constitution itself: as shocking as it is and as ironical as it is ever to imagine happening.
Elaborate reconfiguration of the Nation’s Constitution to dissolve itself through the Amendment process—something at once diabolical and foolproof—is impractical, and empirically impossible. The Framers saw the possibility of malefactors using the Constitution against itself and made the attempt to undo it extremely difficult and unlikely, although possible.
This raises the most pressing question:
CAN THE BILL OF RIGHTS REALLY BE UNDONE?
The claim rests on a dubious assumption. The assumption is that the BOR is a man-made construction. IF SO, it would then follow that the BILL OF RIGHTS is itself amenable to modification in whole or in part. Many there are who assert today—and with sincerity, albeit audaciously, that one or more RIGHTS can and ought to be either modified or erased.
But that idea misconstrues the nature of the Bill of Rights.
Yes, the BOR is drafted by Man, and it has material existence because it is set down in writing. Its essence though isn’t in that writing.
The import of the BOR is that the Rights set forth in it express a NONPHYSICAL, ETERNAL REALITY, incorruptible and absolute that preexist any artifice of man. Therefore, what man has not created, man cannot destroy.
THESE IDEAS BECAME MANIFEST, FIRST IN OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, RATIFIED BY THE STATES AND PERMANENTLY CONCRETED IN STONE IN THE TENETS, PRINCIPLES, PRECEPTS OF INDIVIDUALISM, RECOGNIZING, AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE SANCTITY AND THE INVIOLABILITY OF GOD’S CREATION—MAN.
The essence of this philosophy posits the SANCROSANCTITY of MAN’S MIND and BODY, and SOUL and SPIRIT.
The salient characteristics are conveyed in the notions of “THOUGHT/WILL and ACTION. The FREEDOM OF SPEECH and THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS conveys these two vital modes of HUMAN expression.
The Nation’s BILL OF RIGHTS therefore grounds and undergirds GOD’S MORAL CODE, ORDER, and DIVINE SET OF STRICTURES.
This BOR/MORAL CODE/ORDER/SET of STRICTURES presumptively conflicts with the notion of a ruling “global order” originally referred to as a NEW WORLD ORDER (NWO) and variously described today AS——
THE LIBERAL INTERNATIONAL ORDER (LIO), THE RULES-BASED INTERNATIONAL ORDER (RBIO) (or RBO), GLOBAL GOVERNANCE via GLOBAL GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (GGI), GLOBAL ORDER, WORLD SYSTEM, THE CONSTITUTIONAL INTERNATIONAL ORDER (CIO), THE INTERNATIONAL REGIME, etc.
Under whatever name, the idea expressed alludes to DISSOLUTION of the Nation-State through dominance of, and reliance on multilateral, world organizations such as the UNITED NATIONS (UN), THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO), THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY BOARD, and numerous other world INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (IGOs) and NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOs).
A sinister, not-so-subtle idea underlies the purpose of and rationale for these dubious organizations, although cloaked in benign or neutral language, or sanctimonious and smug, seemingly moral certitude. See, e.g., article in worldjurisprudence.com.
https://worldjurisprudence.com/international-organizations-and-human-rights/
“International organizations serve a critical function in the promotion and protection of human rights globally. They provide a framework for establishing universally accepted standards, fostering dialogue among nations, and facilitating cooperation in addressing human rights issues. Their efforts in monitoring, reporting, and advocating for compliance with human rights norms are vital for fostering accountability.
Organizations such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court play pivotal roles in this realm. They initiate humanitarian interventions, support the creation of legal instruments, and provide technical assistance to countries in need. These entities also help establish independent mechanisms to investigate violations and promote adherence to international human rights law across member states.
Additionally, international organizations engage in capacity-building efforts, equipping governments and civil society with the tools necessary for effective human rights governance. Their extensive networks enable collaboration with various stakeholders, ensuring that local voices are heard in the international arena.
This multifaceted approach underscores the significant influence of international organizations on advancing human rights protections.
In summation, international organizations are instrumental in shaping the landscape of human rights, driving forward initiatives that uphold dignity and justice worldwide.
Their ongoing commitment to these ideals reinforces the interdependence of global governance and the fundamental rights of individuals.”
Of course they do, as do the hundreds of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs). Just take a look at the Open Society Foundations of George Soros and the wonderful work this Billionaire has done to reshape our Nation into a Communist Dystopia, in strict accordance with THE PRECEPTS, TENETS, and PRINCIPLES of COLLECTIVISM.
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/george-soros As the website says,
“Under George Soros’s leadership, the Open Society Foundations support individuals and organizations across the globe working to advance human rights, equity, and justice.”
That may sound appealing to some people absent close analysis. The human rights he advances, along with “equity” (such a wonderful magical word), and justice, has worked well for psychopathic murderers, rapists, and child molesters, international cartels making a cozy living trafficking in illicit drugs and other contraband; and in the trafficking of people, inducing forced servitude, and forced sexual exploitation of women (including, sexual exploitation of children), and moving tens of millions of destitute, unassimilable, and ill people illegally across our borders and across the borders of the EU (with the blessing of Brussels).
See the following links pertaining to the The Soros NGOs: https://thewillcountynews.com/install/index.php/2020/01/11/complete-list-of-u-s-organizations-funded-by-george-soros/ and others are instrumental in destabilizing our Nation and others. Recently, these NGOs, dedicated to the destabilization of American society and that of other western countries by funding Marxists and Communist prosecutors and district attorneys in the major cities of the U.S., and by organizing and funding riots across the Nation, have grown even more ambitious. They have spent exorbitant sums of money, grooming sociopaths for mayoral runs in major cities, organizing and funding social media campaigns to secure their flunkies’ nominations to high office. See, e.g., the slick website for the New York City frontrunner, Marxist/Communist Zohran Mamdani, described by the nebulous euphemism, “Democrat Socialist.”
With a perpetual obscene smile, this COMMUNIST MONSTER, who openly loathes our Country, our culture, our Constitution and our people, will, if elected, which he is on course to secure, tear down NYC in short order. He hasn’t tried to hide his policy aims. See, e.g., the articles at these pertinent articles at these links:
https://legalunitedstates.com/zohran-mamdani-policies-reshape-nycs-future/
On its webpage, the Communist website, jacobin.com, attempts to place a positive spin on the destruction of New York City. It is laughable.
Can there be a better combination for destabilizing a major City, demoralizing the residents, and holding the public hostage, than banning guns, defunding the police, and emptying the prisons.
See also, articles at the links below:
***************************
https://www.outkick.com/culture/zohran-mamdani-ban-guns-tweet-reactions
******************************
There is a nexus between the aims of the Neoliberal Globalist elites, and the Neo-Marxist Internationalist Cultists, as they both seek the destruction of all western nation-states. The Dismantling of the U.S. as an independent sovereign nation-state, the Destruction of a Free Republic, the Dissolution of the U.S. Constitution, and, especially, of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, the eradication of the Country’s Judeo-Christian ethical heritage and system of laws and jurisprudence, the erasure of our national identity and national ethos, and the ruination of our economy and societal order are the most pressing goals for both these large, amorphous groups because of this Nation’s unparallel power and natural and human resources—economically, and technologically, and militarily—pose an insurmountable obstacle to realization of the objective of the Neo-Marxists and the Neoliberal Globalists to create a Global Empire if the U.S. continues alone among all other western nation-states to exist as a independent, sovereign Nation and Free Constitutional Republic.
With IGOs and NGOs becoming more influential in the world, moving the world toward a UNITED GLOBAL EMPIRE ruled by an insular cadre of rulers, there exists no possible ground upon which a multilateral, multicultural, socio-political-economic structure can co-exist with the might of the United States as a unilateral, independent socio-political-economic entity and powerhouse in the world. One or the other must give way.
See, e.g. the Stimson report.
With multilateral institutions and the international legal order under pressure and facing an extreme liquidity crisis, states and civil society partners committed to collective security, sustainable development, human rights, and multilateral diplomacy must step up to defend and champion a stronger, reformed, and more capable global governance system.
A growing financing gap and weakening political support for the Paris Agreement further threaten progress on tackling the world’s most urgent challenge: climate change. Against a backdrop of political division and mistrust among major powers, world leaders convened the Summit of the Future in September 2024 to renew international commitments and reimagine how aging institutions can better cope with twenty-first century risks and opportunities.
The Global Governance Innovation Report 2025 (GGIR’25) offers tools for assessing and promoting implementation of the summit’s outcomes—the Pact for the Future, Global Digital Compact, and Declaration on Future Generations—and explores how to overcome barriers to change ahead of the Pact’s official high-level review in September 2028. It further analyzes and offers novel policy and institutional reform proposals to grapple with the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution—an underemphasized issue at the summit.
GGIR’25 finds a slow yet visible headway to date in realizing key goals of the Pact. Its success hinges on effective multilateral diplomacy, sustained United Nations (UN) leadership, civil society engagement, and a rigorous follow-through.
The powerful, ruthless forces behind these efforts remain hidden. But the organizations they have constructed lay bare the insidiousness of their aims.
Recall the raison d’être for the creation of the European Union was less political and more economic—to make it palatable to the national governments if not palatable to the populations of those countries. See the article on Profolus.com.
The primary purpose of the European Union has been adopted from the collective goals and objectives of the European Economic Community. To be more specific, EU has the purpose of developing and maintaining a single market within Europe with goals and objectives revolving around free trade or free movement of goods and services, as well as the free movement of people and capital. [Emphasis our own]
As an aside, Profolus.com acknowledges something that cannot be avoided even as the site wishes to avoid mention of it. Profolus.com claims, somewhat disingenuously, to make the ceding of political power by the member states to the governing body of the EU to be a good thing, conceding, as it must, innate problems inherent with that.
For, the creation of an economic union logically implies a political union of the member states, which requires member nations to willingly cede political power to the EU (more and more as time goes by as we learn).
“Remember that the EU organization is not just an economic bloc. Another purpose of the European Union is to promote political cooperation and foreign relations among its member-countries. Part of the ideas about European integration comes from the need to maintain political stability across the continent through diplomacy or foreign relations.
However, it is important to note that international relations, in general, remains largely an intergovernmental matter, with EU member-countries controlling their foreign affairs to a large degree. Of course, there have been several instances when the EU operated as a single political actor in the international arena, particularly during trade agreements and energy matters.
There is also a unified mechanism for security and defense diplomacy and actions. EU has the Common Foreign and Security Policy department primarily responsible for such. It coordinates with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization regarding territorial defense. It also develops and participates in international peacekeeping missions and security policy forums. . .
Essentially, the EU has several issues that all boil down to bureaucracy. The integration of different governments under a single supranational government entity has brought forth conflicts due to differences or disagreements in positions. The complications and issues have represented some of the significant criticism toward the EU and toward political and economic integration within the region.” [emphasis our own]
Government Bureaucracies are as much a problem with independent nation-states as with transnational entities (empires) like the EU, as both trend toward DESPOTIC TYRANNY, if they do not commence as DESPOTIC regimes at the outset.
The insidious thing about Government—those ostensibly democratic governments, no less than those that have no pretense of being democratic although the rulers refer to their governments as democratic—is the claim that they promote human rights.
Profolus.com says,
Internally, the EU promotes and protects conventions pertaining to the rights of EU citizens. Note the organization has also been founded based on values the respect human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, and the rule of law. Member-states are required to enforce treaties signed and ratified by the EU such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union based on the Lisbon Treaty that took effect in 2009. [Id.]
Such documents as the EU’s Charter of Human Rights” are vacuous for this salient reason.
A GOVERNMENT/STATE CANNOT RATIONALLY/LOGICALLY PROTECT/ENFORCE ELEMENTAL, FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL LAW, ETERNAL RIGHTS BECAUSE THOSE RIGHTS PREDATE/PREEXIST STATE.
This means that Government (the State) cannot create what already exists in Man. To assert or suggest otherwise contradicts the IMPORT AND CONCEPT OF AND REALITY OF NATURAL LAW AS EXISTENT IN MAN PRIOR TO THE EXISTENCE OF GOVERNMENT, i.e., “THE STATE.”
TRUE DESCRIPTIONS OF RIGHTS OF MAN SET FORTH IN CONSTITUTION MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS MERE CODIFCATION OF PREEXISTENT LAW, AND NOT LAW CREATED BY MAN.
But a perusal of Documents purporting to be expressions of Human Rights make plain that the Rights set down in Law are ENFORCED/ENFORCEABLE by the STATE and are subject to modification by the State. Hence, the assertion/suggestion that these Rights are “FUNDAMENTAL” may, on a superficial level, sound noble, righteous, but comes across as something much less—on a mere cursory analysis—as a thing ostentatious and fatuous. And the Government/State comes across as supercilious for crafting a bill of Rights at all.
If a Government/State does not intend to acknowledge and acquiesce to a “Bill of Rights” that it does not to honor and that consists of qualifications and regulations, then that government/state would do well, to desist from crafting one since to create one, under false pretenses, suggesting that its “bill of rights” has purpose—to benefit its populace—then the government would be expected to fulfill its commitment. But that is never the case. Moreover, the salient, principal purpose government is to provide for the common defense of the nation and beyond that, avoid interfering with the lives of its people. Thus, a bill of rights, such as one crafted in the EU, is, at best, redundant, and, worse, vacuous and fatuous, and, worst of all, a deception that masks Government conduct that injures the populace all the while proclaiming a false intention to serve the people that fall under that government’s rule.
Fundamental Rights—TRUE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (i.e., NATURAL LAW RIGHTS)—such as the RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE, which entails THE RIGHT TO ARMED [EFFECTIVE] SELF-DEFENSE, and the RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION cannot legally, ethically, rationally be modified or abrogated by amendment because these rights preexist Government. These rights are inherent in man. They are SUPREME authority. Those Rights of LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY, in our BOR, supersede all man-made enactments. The Rights laid down in the BOR are not man-made laws.
What is written down are representations of Divine Law, which supersede all an-made law when man-made law comes into conflict with Divine Law.
See more about this infra.
How do these ideas connect to or conflict with government?
“Government” is man’s most conspicuous and prominent artifice.
Government claims to benefit man, but eventually, inevitably, unavoidably, and invariably harms man. For men comprise government. And all men have failings.
Even people with integrity and honesty can fall into error and vice.
Those who wield some power will desire, at some point, to wield more power. That desire will grow into an overwhelming, insatiable urge to accrue further power— well beyond the limitations imposed by the Constitution. And, who, inside the Government or outside it is there to apply the brakes on a runaway Government.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were aware of this trait in men. To keep the urge to exercise power constrained within bounds, the Framers crafted a Government of limited powers, carefully circumscribed and demarcated among THREE CO-EQUAL BRANCHES.
The Framers hoped the novel government they envisioned and crafted would rein in willful, spiteful, selfish, contemptuous men from exerting powers and authority beyond those precisely delineated in the Constitution.
Through diligent effort they crafted a centralized “Federal” Government to provide for the common defense of the Nation—the salient purpose of it—yet would not pose a danger to the American people who are and remain the true and sole sovereign authority over Government that exists only by grace of the American people who consent to it, and retain the power to dissolve it when it devolves into Tyranny.
But for all their effort to rein in this beast, would not that Government, in time, grow immensely powerful and, forgetting those whom it exists to serve and the purpose for which that government exists, threaten the sovereign authority of THE PEOPLE, whom that government is meant to work tirelessly for and to devote its sole efforts to—becoming, in the end, the very thing feared—A DESPOTIC TYRANT?
And if that about face were to occur, that the Federal Government behemoth would become, ironically, the very thing these first American Patriots had successfully fought a war of independence to defeat, would not the horror and absurdity of that outcome, a TRAVESTY, CAUSING THE DOWNFALL of the Nation they sought to bring to fruition give them pause? And, would they not feel all the more defeated in having spent considerable time, energy, and debate, only to create a monstrosity destined to wreak havoc more ruinous to the American people than the empire they had miraculously vanquished?
The possibility of such a devastating end to a nascent Free Constitutional Republic must have been uppermost in their minds.
The Framers knew full well that the most assiduously crafted government may slow down the rise of a Despotic Government, A TYRANNY, but nothing at all—within the confines of the Government itself, and however well-conceived and assiduously crafted—could prevent the Government’s collapse and descent into TYRANNY.
The Tyrant-Government would invariably dismiss the suggestion that IT IS a Tyrant, arguing that the powers wielded, beyond the parameters set by the Constitution, are not something desired, but, rather, powers that are needed TO MAINTAIN ORDER AND TO PROMOTE HARMONY in an increasingly complex society and world.
This is self-delusion—delusion thrust on the people themselves, where oppression is sold to the American citizenry as peace, tidiness, and harmony.
Yet ostensible quest for “ORDER” AND “HARMONY,” were it true, predicated in good faith, would be nothing of the sort— self-delusion at best. TYRANNY would invite THE INVERSE — “DISORDER,” AND “DISSONANCE,” where a Country loses its Soul.
Americans have in the past three decades, perceived a likelihood of the gravest fear of the Founders of the Republic coming to fruition. Yet, the urgency of the threat now upon us, took 240 years to get here, which suggests the Framers of the United States Constitution did a credible job in having perspicaciously perceived a likely dire future for Americans—GIVEN THE NATURE OF ALL GOVERNMENT— BUT FORESTALLING IT FOR WELL OVER TWO CENTURIES.
And something could be said for that, for having conceived and crafted perhaps the best possible government, if a centralized “Federal” Government were necessary at all, as the FEDERALISTS, among the FRAMERS, firmly believed and insisted upon.
And, through the passing decades, as the Federal Government grew by leaps and bounds into a gargantuan institution—the GOVERNMENT WHICH THE PUBLIC SEES and a SECOND GOVERNMENT, ONE OPAQUE, SECRET, SINISTER—that the public does not see—one MORE POWERFUL THAN THE SEEMINGLY TRANSPARENT, OPEN, INNOCUOUS BENEVOLENT GOVERNMENT THAT THE PUBLIC HAS AT LEAST SOME COGNIZANCE OF.
Are we in the midst of a calamity? As is invariably the case, the Destroyers of our Free Republic, claim disingenuously and hollowly, that the upending of our Nation, the disembowelment of our Constitution, the eradication of a Country grounded on a socio-political precept of Individualism, a callous reconfiguration of the American psyche, and major upheaval of America’s institutions and transformation of society, is essential to bring about something new, something better: but better for whom and in what way?
A Country devoid of territorial borders, the erasure of the concept of ‘citizenship,’ and the concept of ‘National Identity,’ the destruction of ‘Natural Law’ and of Moral Stricture (derived from ‘THE DIVINE CREATOR’), is doomed TO DECAY and RUIN.
The IDEA of such a calamity occurring is nothing new. The REALITY of it is awful to contemplate and face.
Such attempts by those who profess belief in the ideology of COLLECTIVISM, that is intricately connected with/inextricably bound to DESPOTISM and TYRANNY, has never succeeded—at least not yet—but EIGHT YEARS OF OBAMA AND FOUR MORE THE DEMENTED AND DEMENTIA-RIDDLED JOE BIDEN, must give one pause.
GOVERNMENTS GROUNDED ON the IDEOLOGY OF COLLECTIVISM, will invariably cause political strife, economic ruin, social and moral decay, and abject human misery, resulting in ANARCHY and CHAOS, and PROCEEDING THEN TO TOTALITARIANISM, requiring of the populace unquestioning and absolute obedience to the regime and its rulers. DISORDER OF THE FORMER DOES NOT MANIFEST AS ORDER IN THE LATTER BUT SIMPLY INTO A NEW KIND OF DISORDER. DICTATORIAL RULE IS DISORDER CLOAKED AS ORDER BECAUSE AD HOC EDICTS OF DESPOTS DO NOT BESPEAK LAW AND ORDER BUT ABSENCE OF LAW, PROMOTING DISORDER.
The lessons of Leninist and Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge Movement in Cambodia, Castro’s Cuba, the “People’s Republics” in Africa, and the regime of North Korea, under Kim Jong Un—to name a few—all murderous dictatorships, and all rooted in COLLECTIVISM, bear this out. They are tenuous political constructs, always on the cusp of annihilation, as the Despots, growing ever more paranoid, clamp down harder on the people, jailing and killing more and more of the populace, leading inevitably to rebellion. But the lessons of COLLECTIVISM/TOTALITARIANISM are never learned and therefore doomed to be repeated.
THE FIRST INDICATION OF A TREND TOWARD DESPOTIC RULE IS SEEN IN A BAN ON CIVILIAN POSSESSION and OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS and AMMUNITION.
A DESPOT/TYRANT will never suffer an armed citizenry. It cannot. It is in the realization of the people that a DESPOT cares nothing for their well-being that the people do indeed pose a threat to RULE by DECREE—DECREE THAT GROWS MORE AND MORE ARBITRARY AND MORE AND MORE DRACONIAN—THAT DESPOTIC DECREE BECOMES INTOLERABLE, and REVOLT occurs.
To forestall Open Revolt, THE DESPOT will resort to imposition of increasingly extreme measures to retain power. And, the first measures will commence with confiscation of firearms and ammunition, and subjugation of the people will follow in due course.
BUT WHAT IMPULSES DRIVE OUR NATION TOWARD DESPOTISM AND TYRANNY?
The attempt to destroy our Free Republic, replacing it with Communist-Collectivist autocracy, cannot be rationally explained since we were and are the most successful Nation on Earth: economically, culturally, institutionally, jurisprudentially, societally and politically.
Had this Country devolved into a failed state, upheaval would be natural. But why rebel against success? The only answer is that outside influences seek to destroy our Nation BECAUSE we are SUCCESSFUL AND POWERFUL — MILITARILY, TECHNOLOGICALLY, FINANCIALLY, AND CULTURALLY. Our Nation has an abundance of natural resources and talent.
THE OBSTRUCTORS/DESTRUCTORS OF OUR COUNTRY WANT CONTROL OVER ALL OF THIS.
Free Republics devolve into Tyranny for many reasons. As we have maintained, all governments trend toward Despotism. It is bad enough when Americans, working in Government accrue power for their own ends. It is worse when outside forces bribe, cajole, or threaten to betray their Country.
ALL GOVERNMENTS EVENTUALLY, BECOME INSTRUMENTS WORKING AGAINST THEIR POPULACE FOR IT IS GOVERNMENT THAT WIELDS GREAT POWER BY WHICH IT MAY EXERT CONTROL OVER ITS PEOPLE
The desire to tear down our Republic is not a new invention or a new plan. It is one that existed immediately after the Revolution that allowed a Free Republic to be created.
Powerful interests were enraged by this and became more so, the more powerful and successful we became through time.
Neoliberal Globalist interests coupled with Cultural Marxist interests have a similar aim: creation of a World Empire. And the United States is an important component of that, and the continued prominence of the United States “GETS IN THE WAY” of realization of WORLD EMPIRE.
But MOST Americans are not interested in that. So Powerful interests in modern times, orchestrated a plan to deal with the intransigent American.
These powerful, ruthless interests devised a plan. That plan would take time to carry out, about eighty years—from the Mid-Twentieth Century through the first few decades of the Twenty-First.
The plan they devised and implemented was devious. They would cultivate a false history of America: OPPRESSOR VS. OPPRESSED. They introduced false constructs such as IDENTITY POLITICS and DEI, TRANSGENDER IDEATION, and MORAL RELATIVISM, and thrust these on both our children and adults.
These powerful interests also influenced crass opportunists in Government to open up our borders, deliberately bringing in multitudes of destitute, and unassimilable people to ravage society, economically and socially.
They crafted an elaborate illusion about America to convince the polity to destroy itself.
Most Americans saw through this, and they voted Donald Trump into Office to turn around the pending disaster to our Nation. He succeeded.
Many Americans who otherwise were oblivious to an internal National threat learned of the threat confronting them.
The Destroyers of our Nation could not entice, cajole, or threaten Trump to join their cause or temper his actions, as he was devoted to securing the well-being of the Country and its people.
Having failed to dislodge Trump through scathing articles in the Press, fabricated legal actions and impeachment, and even an attempt at assassination, these forces realized they had a real battle on their hands.
They have tried, with minimal success, to convince the public that Trump is a threat to “DEMOCRACY,” without bothering to define what term means. Some Americans bought into the nonsense, becoming avid cultists of fanciful dogma to entreat them. Most Americans saw through the idiocy of the dogmas thrust on them and were outraged at the attack on the Country and on themselves. They aren’t buying any of this.
They see through the lies, recognizing at once where the real threat to our Nation is emanating from.
The threat to the well-being of the Nation can’t be rationally placed on the Trump administration.
Trump is the preventive medicine, not the cause of the Nation’s perilous movement.
The first inkling of a major threat posed to the well-being of the Republic and “to the security of a Free State”, came during the Obama period.
Eight years later, the American people had had enough.
Most pollsters and the legacy Press missed this, or perhaps their preconceptions that Hillary Clinton had the 2016 election in the bag—that the upstart, Donald Trump could not feasibly win—caused the pollsters and legacy media to refuse to countenance a Trump victory. The American people had other plans. They saw where the Country was headed under Obama and wanted none of that. The legacy Press, for its part, did nothing to hide the fact that Hillary Clinton would continue the policies and agenda of Obama; nor did Clinton herself. https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/10/21/Hillary-Clinton-Presidency-Means-Four-More-Years-Obama-Policies
The person the puppet masters selected as their useful idiot to play the role of U.S. President was an effete, slothful, mentally and emotionally feeble, physically frail, incorrigibly corrupt, grossly incompetent, and an inveterate liar, a person without conviction, or scruples—a person with no positive virtue or trait required of one serving in the most important, demanding position in the Country.
It would not surprise anyone that this person, Joe Biden, would go down in history as the worst U.S. President this Nation ever had, bar none. The Country he would leave to the American people would aptly reflect his personal characteristics: a veritable train wreck.
So, Biden was President in name only—the pyrrhic holder of the Office, not the decision-maker. That truth, suspected by many, despite attempts to keep it hidden, became painfully plain to the most obtuse person, having viewed Biden’s disastrous debate performance on June 28, 2024.
One did not need to be a medical doctor to conclude that Joe Biden was noticeably riddled with dementia. See, e.g., article in time.com.
So, who or what ran the Executive Branch of Government from January 20, 2021 to January 20, 2025? The American people may never know but should know. This is not an academic matter.
The first sentence of Section 1, Article II, of the U.S. Constitution, says,
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Section 2 of Article II delineates those powers exercised by the President.
Article II makes plain there is one, and only one, President of the United States. He is the ultimate Decision-Maker, as the U.S. Constitution dictates.
Under 3 USCS § 301, the U.S. President can delegate some executive functions to subordinates, but he cannot transfer the powers of the U.S. President to those subordinates.
Joseph Biden never attempted to transfer power to anyone because, from his first day in Office to his last, he never wielded the power of the U.S. President.
See article on Presidential delegation of authority in legalclarity.org.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide for or allow a titular President. If an individual elected to that Office cannot perform the duties of that Office, he cannot serve as President in Office.
Since Biden wasn’t fit to serve as President and did not, effectively, serve as President, then this Country did not have a President during that period in time.
Americans lived in a State of Tyranny, for they had no President.
Unknown, unelected elements, whoever they are, had taken over the Executive Branch of Government. Americans lived in a totalitarian State but few recognized that.
If crafting policy and making decisions fell to unelected persons, unbeknownst to Biden, then they and he have perpetrated a terrible fraud on the American people.
Those Biden years severely weakened the Nation, economically, geopolitically, and societally, and endangered the Nation, the safety and well-being of the citizenry, and the sanctity of our laws and Constitution.
This cannot be attributed to incompetence or error alone. The extent and intensity of the ruin bespeaks design, a master plan—treachery to Nation, people, and our laws.
Whoever or whatever force drove our Country to the brink of ruin, meant to do so, and, if the “Democrat” Party retained control of the Executive Branch, the dissolution of our Country would have come to fruition.
Secretive, shadowy, malevolent, ruthless forces had taken control of the Executive Branch of Government, in defiance of the Constitution and the will of the people. How they accomplished this is unknown. That they did accomplish this cannot be reasonably doubted and denied.
The inescapable conclusion is that a well-crafted government, even one assiduously designed to minimize despotism, may still fall prey to treachery, turning against the people whose interests it was meant to serve, devolving into the obverse of its designers’ intent.
Therefore, while governments may be established with the intention of serving their populace, even the most well-intentioned contain underlying risks or vulnerabilities—malignant seeds that eventually bear poisonous fruit.
During the Biden era, this Nation did not have a functioning government if by the phrase, “functioning government,” we are to mean one working under the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the Land, and one serving the interests of the American people.
Like an automobile with its gas gauge pointing to “empty,” our Free Republic was riding on fumes, cascading close to a full stop.
All forms of government inevitably tend over time, toward disorder (entropy).
Our governments (State and Federal, local and regional) aren’t immune to this because evil people, and crass opportunists, will, in time, gain unlawful control over the levers of government, and, once gaining control of government, will manipulate and reengineer government to operate to their advantage.
This is axiomatic, and, so, unavoidable.
Our Federal Government, one designed with “checks and balances” can forestall but not, of itself, prevent collapsing into a state of tyranny and eventual destruction.
It is also axiomatic that no artifice of man can effectively police itself, to prevent the rise of despotism.
A Free Constitutional Republic that falls to Despotic rule is appropriately called “Tyranny.”
To prevent this calamitous outcome, and not merely forestall it, something outside government is needed.
No other Nation on Earth but our own has crafted an effective failsafe mechanism—one capable of preventing Tyranny from arising or, if, perchance, tyranny comes to fruition, then successfully crushing it, were it spring forth.
That mechanism is our Bill of Rights.
In the next article we explain how our Bill of Rights differs from that of any other Nation.
We also explain how it is concomitant on OUR NATION’S THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, THE U.S. SUPREME, to come to fulfill its obligations to protect and serve the Constitution in the capacity that only this Court, among the THREE BRANCHES can effectively serve. For, only the U.S. Supreme Court has ultimate authority, and the final last word to interpret the meaning of the Constitution or Congressional legislation if conflict arises.
Other nations claim to include something akin to our bill of rights, but ours is the “genuine article.” The others are effectively nugatory, a hoax perpetrated on the public, designed to deceive a populace into the false belief that their government recognizes and accepts such fundamental, unalienable rights as tangibles over which government has no lawful power to undermine.
The BILL OF RIGHTS is “the genuine article. It differs dramatically from the bill of rights of all other nations, and from the one crafted by the United Nations and offered for adoption by member states.
For ours is a TRUE Bill of Rights, unlike the UN’s, called the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR).
Despite the glowing name, the UDHR is a vacuous document. For it does not recognize the fundamental, unalienable rights it proclaims, because that UDHR, and any bill of rights crafted from it, by a government, clarifies that such rights are allocated to the people by government and enforced by that government, and are not, therefore, construed as truly intrinsic to the people.
And, since those governments are the sole provider and protector of the rights, those governments must be understood as the source of the rights. Therefore, they are man-made rights, bestowed on the people by the government and rescinded by the Government as the government so wills.
Such rights are tenuous, arbitrary, conditional—the opposite of Natural law. Such documents of fundamental rights serve merely to placate a population’s desire for freedom and liberty but offer nothing and recognize nothing.
Ratification of our TRUE Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution occurred on December 15, 1791. It comprises Ten Amendments to the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights exists today, 234 years later, exactly as it did on the date ratified.
There is no need for amendment [nor there can be] as the rights are, concisely, categorically stated.
Retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens evidently disagrees. He has proposed modifications to six of the Amendments to the Bill of Rights, in a book published on September 24, 2024: “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” ment proceeds from his abhorrence of it. He proposes an amendment to make plain, his belief that, if the Amendment is not to be repealed outright, it should at least be rewritten to make plain that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is to be taken to mean a COLLECTIVE RIGHT—emphasizing the DEPENDENT CLAUSE preceding the INDEPENDENT CLAUSE, which reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”
This idea of his is laid out in detail in his lengthy dissent in the 2008 Landmark Second Amendment case, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA vs. HELLER.
The majority opinion was penned by the late eminent Justice, Antonin Scalia. The opinion makes poignantly clear—after well over 200 years of obfuscation by the Supreme Court—that the right of the people to keep and bear arms asserts an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, unconnected to one’s service in a militia.
This is plain in the text of the Amendment. Scholars who dislike the import of the text claim vagueness or ambiguity where none exists.
Heller resolves the issue, ending the impulse to write into the text of the Natural Law Right what doesn’t exist except in the minds of those people who dislike the import and purport of the Law.
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens is one of those individuals.
Stevens’ proposed modification is a declaration of his distaste for the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.
Stevens claims the prefatory dependent clause in the text as ratified is to be understood as a limitation on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and not what the majority takes to be a qualification or rationale for the right. Stevens claim makes no sense, on either grammatical or logical grounds.
From a GRAMMATICAL STANDPOINT, dependent clauses have no purport on their own, but for the independent clause they modify, clarifying, in the instant case, the salient purpose for/reason for the right beyond the obvious one—that of providing an effective means of self-defense against predatory beast or predatory man. Since that is a given, no more would be needed than the words, “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” But those words would be redundant since the right to SELF-DEFENSE is a fundamental NATURAL LAW RIGHT. The right to keep and bear arms simply means that, if a person has a right to self-defense that must include the right to use adequate means to ensure one’s defense against predatory threats. And no better tool for self-defense exists today than it did at the time of the American Revolution (and four hundred years before that when firearms first came into common use for military use and for personal self-defense). A firearm is the best means of survival against predatory attack.
The use of the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment obviously alludes to the necessity of firearms to defeat tyranny, as it served America’s first Patriots well. For without firearms, America’s Patriots could not have had any chance of success in their War for Independence from Tyranny, as imposed on them by the British Monarch, George III.
The Framers of the Constitution had no desire to be the cause of instituting, albeit unintentionally, another Tyranny of their own making if the Nation’s fledgling new central “Federal” Government would one day turn on the American people, the very Sovereign Citizenry for whom it exists to serve.
Hence, the codification of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a plain and solemn reminder to the Federal Government that by the exercise of this Sacred Right the American people can best ensure their LIFE AND LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY against Government Tyranny.
The words also convey the message that the American people shall not suffer tyranny, especially a tyranny that comes in the guise of the people’s own government.
Hence, a firearm serves as an effective means to counter the predatory man-beast of Government, no less than it effectively counters any other predatory threat to life and well-being.
Stevens’ argument against the Second Amendment fails utterly to pay heed to the singular reason that the prefatory clause appears in the Second Amendment. It is not meant to be a constraint on the keeping and bearing of arms by the citizenry (since the natural law right is unlimited and absolute) but a constraint on Government (whose powers are not unlimited and are not absolute).
The Second Amendment also serves as a constant reminder, one that it must never forget for whom the Government serves and that it is in service to the people it has any reason to exist at all.
Stevens doesn’t care about any of that. In fact, in an Op-Ed, posted in the New York Times, March 27, 2018, under a title that has no pretense of subtlety, and likely was crafted by the NY Times Editorial Board — “John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment,”— the author appears to acknowledge that the prefatory clause was, as the Majority in Heller said, a rationale for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and not a limitation on the right, which he asserts and then dismisses out-of-hand, when he writes, “Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.” [emphasis our own]
As recited supra, any attempt at amending or repealing a Natural Law Right would not defeat an American’s right to exercise it because Natural Law Rights are not crafted by man. They are crafted by the Divine Creator and are codifications of Divine Law. Hence, if any one or more of the Rights of the BOR were modified by amendment or repealed through the steps outlined in the Constitution, the Rights would not “go away” because they have divine origin. The FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION—both FEDERALISTS and ANTIFEDERALISTS took this as self-evident.
The Federalists, among the Framers, saw a document of natural laws as redundant and as self-limiting if codified since there are likely many, whether enumerated or not.
If nothing about them is explicit, then nothing can be modified or abrogated. The Federalists have a point. GOD-GIVEN LAW NEED NOT BE EXPLICITLY STATED TO BE EFFECTIVE, AS LONG AS GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES SUCH LAW AND ACCEDES TO IT. But therein lies the rub. Suppose Government does not accede to acknowledging Natural Law.
Truth be told, NATURAL LAW ISN’T SUBJECT TO LAWFUL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION BECAUSE NATURAL LAW, UNLIKE MAN-MADE LAW IS ETERNAL, NOT CONTINIGENT AND TEMPORARY. IT PREEXISTS GOVERNMENT AND IS INTRINSIC TO MAN’S BEING, NOT EXTRINSIC TO MAN AS STATUTORY CONSTRUCTS OR GOVERNMENT EDICTS EXIST EXTRINSICALLY AS THINGS CRAFTED BY MAN.
NATURAL LAW that is set down in a writing, DOES NOT thereby transform NATURAL LAW into MAN-MADE LAW but, as the ANTIFEDERALISTS MADE THEIR CASE, THERE IS SOUND REASON FOR CODIFYING NATURAL LAW IN A WRITING.
LET’S CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON FOR CODIFYING THE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS IN OUR BOR.
If set down in writing, an unscrupulous Government might, of course, one day seek to erase that natural law, claiming that the erasure of it in writing, serves to erase THE FACT OF IT, and the American people can no longer lawfully exercise that natural law.
Thus, if natural law rights were reduced to writing, some may claim that the phrase, “Natural Law Rights” is a misnomer—that “natural law rights” do not exist, and that all rights codified in law are man-made law, subject to modification or outright repeal.
That is the position of many scholars and politicians. But, if that is the case, then reason enough exists for codifying Basic Rights. For, if codified, then, until they are repealed, they have the force of law even if one believes that all law is man-made. And, since amending any portion of the U.S. Constitution is difficult—deliberately so, codification of “IMPORTANT LAW” even if construed as only MAN-MADE by some still has substantial efficacy.
The FEDERALISTS, though, as with the ANTIFDERALISTS accepted as CLEAR and AXIOMATIC that FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS qua GOD-MADE LAW cannot be undone lawfully by MAN since MAN DOES NOT CRAFT GOD-MADE LAW.
Thus, CODIFICATION OF NATURAL LAW MERELY “INSTANTIATES” AN ABSTRACT, ETERNAL ENTITY. The codification of Natural Law is, then, no more than a material man-made symbolic representation of a profound SUPERNAL REALITY.
THE FEDERALISTS thereupon point out the absence of any need to represent in a writing what exists outside materiality as that makes light of the immanence of such NATURAL LAW in MAN as a product of the DIVINE.
Thus, a good argument can be made that all fundamental, unalienable rights ought to remain unenumerated. And that is one reason evinced by the FEDERALISTS for refraining from codifying the NATURAL LAW RIGHTS.
The second reason the FEDERALISTS evince for refraining from codifying such Natural Law is that GOVERNMENT may deny, and refuse to recognize and adhere to NATURAL LAW that is unenumerated but only to NATURAL LAW RIGHTS that are enumerated. Thus, the need to enumerate as many Natural Law Rights the Framers can conceptualize may likely lead to omitting some rights that need to be enumerated but never were. Thereafter, Government can claim not to be bound or constrained from precluding the citizenry from exercising rights recognized after the fact but inadvertently missed at the time such LIST of NATURAL LAW RIGHTS were enumerated and ratified by the States as it would be difficult to add others after the fact, given the difficulty in amending the Constitution. And, as all the Framers plainly agreed that the Constitution should not be a document easily amended, lest the public or Government attempt to amend the Constitution out of existence (which many politicians and scholars, supportive of NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISM and/or NEO-MARXIST INTERNATIONALISM are desirous of doing, being of the mind to look upon the entirety of the Constitution, as old, archaic, and no longer relevant in a modern world tending toward a massive socio-political-economic empire ruled by GLOBALIST-MARXIST “ELITES,”—DICTATING NORMS OF BEHAVIOR to the vast populations of lower human-kind.
The Antifederalists, among the Framers, insisted on the codification of God-given law.
And they had a good reason for doing so. For, if these basic rights were not set down in writing, a rogue Government would one day deny their existence and that they never existed.
But once these rights are set down in writing, a treacherous government could not plausibly deny their existence.
And, even if such a government would deny such “natural law rights,” and claim that the rights in the Bill of Rights are only man-made law, crafted by man and therefore subject to modification or abrogation by man, that government would still be compelled to acknowledge the existence of them.
That rogue government must either bow to them or try banning the exercise of them—not outright—that would be difficult. The people would justifiably take strong exception to that.
If the Government sought to ban them outright, that would at once make known to the people that the Government has turned its back on the people—that it has become a tyrant.
Even the Democrat Party-controlled Government, here in the United States, that loathes the power of the Bill of Rights has not dared try to eradicate it or go through the trouble of attempting to repeal it outright, a lengthy and impossible process, as the Framers intended.
So, the Bill of Rights persists as a constant reminder and a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants that our eternal rights are here to stay. The Antifederalists knew this. That is why they insisted that the most emphatic of the fundamental rights be reduced to writing.
For, even if some Americans, inside or outside the Government, would argue that such “Natural Law” is really “Man-Made law” subject to change through amendment or statutory modification, they must still concede there is something in those laws, as they exist as tangibles, peremptorily, in the Constitution, and therefore cannot be ignored.
Our Bill of Rights serves another purpose too. Eternal, God-given rights are not amenable to the whims of man or fashion. Unlike the Articles, there is nothing in the recitation of the Rights to suggest defined limits. Thus, as written, they express the will of the Divine Creator.
This is a point that the Leftists in this Country refuse to accept. But, because the Bill of Rights exists in the Constitution, they must contend with it, acknowledging that to most Americans the Bill of Rights is not a statement of man-made law but of God-made law.
And, as God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect, the rights he has instilled in man express the absoluteness of God’s will. Therefore, the natural law, as an embodiment of God’s will, must be absolute—allowing for nothing that would denigrate the idea.
The American people as bearers of natural law assert their status as sole and supreme sovereign over government.
The Federalists relented, likely perceiving the logic behind the Antifederalists desire and insistence on a physical codification of Divine Law that could not be readily and perfunctorily denied by a Federal Government that tended toward Tyranny even if that Tyrant refuses to accept the Bill of Rights as Natural Law. The power infused in the law is evident in the manner in which the Framers codified it, leaving little to the imagination as to the emphatic import and purport of it.
No Government whether Federal or State can override or dismiss Divine Law, as it stands outside man-made law. And, given the strength of the law as codified, even a Tyrant must accept the power emanating from it.
But, if a Tyrant could effectively ban operation of the Bill of Rights, its light burns in the heart of America’s Patriots. That light cannot die.
So even if tyranny takes hold here, or the Constitution is amended to change or remove the Bill of Rights, the rights themselves would persist because their reality does not exist in the temporal world. The codification of the Law would persist as an angry ghost to haunt any would-be Tyrant.
These Rights that exist in Man, through Divine Will, not by the will of the State, have several salient characteristics. They are——
FUNDAMENTAL
UNALIENABLE
NONPHYSICAL
ETERNAL
UNLIMITED
IRREDUCIBLE
INDIVISIBLE
ABSOLUTE
No government or other governing entity crafted by man can lawfully override or disavow what it has not created and cannot itself create.
This doesn’t mean that subjugation of the American people cannot occur. But any ban on exercising fundamental rights is illegal.
The American people have a right and moral obligation to disobey illegal Government action that betrays our Constitution and Natural Law Rights.
Considering “Natural Law”—
The most important right, on this material plane—an unenumerated right, bundled in the Ninth Amendment of the BOR—is THE RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE INDIVIDUAL.
THIS RIGHT LOGICALLY ENTAILS THE ABSOLUTE SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF MAN’S BODY AND MIND, AND SOUL AND SPIRIT.
The vehicles through which a citizen of the United States expresses this sublime right is through two enumerated rights—the right of FREE SPEECH (an umbrella term that includes the RIGHT TO DISSENT) and THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. This latter enumerated right follows from the broader, unenumerated RIGHT of SELF-PRESERVATION, which implies one’s RIGHT TO PRESERVE HIS LIFE AND WELL-BEING AND THAT OF HIS FAMILY THROUGH USE OF THE BEST MEANS AVAILABLE AGAINST BEAST, MAN-BEAST, OR THE MAN-BEAST OF GOVERNMENT, (AND ITS AGENTS).
Those ruthless forces bent on turning aside our RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE, realize the difficulty of the effort, but also the need to accomplish it. For the United States cannot suffer defeat if they remain armed.
The Electorate has fortunately learned a valuable lesson from the horror launched against the public by the previous Administration.
The present President, Donald Trump, has stated numerous times that he supports and will protect and strengthen the right codified in the Second Amendment, in one of his first Executive Orders (the obverse of an Executive Order signed Joseph Biden) cancels Biden’s Order. See Fact Sheet of February 7, 2025.
Yet, Trump has plenty of issues to deal with, as the enemy to our Nation, to our Constitution, and to our People, is many.
That enemy is well-organized and well-funded. That enemy is also tenacious and relentless. And, that enemy is determined to reverse the promise of the Revolution of 1776. The Citizenry must hold fast to its history, heritage, national identity, and core ethical values. To lose any of those is to jeopardize our Free Republic and the sovereignty of the American people over Government.
Trump must deal with a myriad of issues. This prevents him from taking action to strengthen the natural law right to armed self-defense under constant and merciless attack.
And Congress is ineffectual in protecting this vital Rights. That leaves us to rely on the Third Branch of Government.
It is the Judicial Branch (more commonly known and called the U.S. Supreme Court) that can do the most to protect and strengthen the right to keep and bear arms.
While the President can issue executive orders and actions protecting this sacred right, those orders and actions do not have constancy. Another Administration can counter them by issuing new executive orders. And, the Administrative State (Bureaucracy) can issue rules with the effect of law, but those, too, can be modified or done away with.
Congress can enact laws impacting the right to keep and bear arms, but most constrain exercise of the right, not defend and strengthen it. And any statutes that Congress enacts, Congress can repeal.
Congress, the President, and the Administrative State should not interfere with natural law right. Even those Executive Actions, Congressional Acts, or Administrative Rules that support and strengthen the exercise of the sacred right to armed self-defense pose a glaring problem.
If the Government involves itself with our Natural Law Rights, it treads on sacred ground the Constitution forbids. It should proceed with caution.
Executive and Congressional action should be circumspect and narrowly drawn.
That leaves the Judicial Branch.
The Judicial Branch (commonly and aptly called the U.S. Supreme Court) as a Branch of the Federal Government must be careful in its rulings, as it alone has authority to interpret laws and Constitution and place finality on that interpretation. The Court must ensure its rulings protect and not infringe those rights.
The Heller, McDonald, and Bruen cases, unlike the Second Amendment cases before them, did much to strengthen the right embodied in the words, expressing Natural Law.
But, after June 23, 2022, when the Bruen case came down, something pernicious occurred. This is markedly true in matters of the Second Amendment.
This term (which the Court has extended through July), the Court has denied review of three cases that strike at the core of the Second Amendment and at the Supreme Court’s rulings in its first three landmark cases: Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.
The most important Second Amendment case this term is Antonyuk vs. James. The Court’s failure to grant certiorari comes at a bad time, and is the latest bad example of a Court that has lost its way.
The Court has shown a dismissive stance toward Second Amendment rights and, by not addressing the actions of certain states and courts, it is seen as effete. This opens itself up to further exploitation by rogue States and rogue courts, and by Political Progressives and Marxists both in the States and in Congress.
The High Court should look closely at its own behavior. It frequently lacks strength when needed.
The first line of the first paragraph of Section 2 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution says,
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.”
Although tacit, effectuating the intent of the Framers in protecting the Bill of Rights from State or Federal Government tampering is monumentally important to preserving a Free Republic.
Unfortunately, through time, Congress, and the Executive Branches, have done much more harm than good and the Supreme Court has come across as indifferent, diffident and sometimes inconsistent in its treatment of it—all too often passing on cases it ought to take up. It is shirking its obligation, and in matters involving the Second Amendment—the most vital of our Rights—dismissing the most important cases.
The case Antonyuk vs. James is the most important case to come before the Court since NYSRPA vs. Bruen.
The odd thing about this case is that, through a perusal of its history, the Court has more than intimated that it sees this case as crucial to solidifying the import of the three Landmark cases, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.
Yet, at the Eleventh Hour, when the expectation was high that the Court would finally grant review after three years of back and forth on it—from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, then up to the High Court twice, then back down to the Second Circuit, and back up to the Supreme Court a third time—what does the Supreme Court do? It quietly, meekly disposes of the case without explanation and no further direction or instruction to the Second Circuit.
The few commentators that discuss this latest perfunctory denial of review either assert astonishment at the Court’s dismal action and propose odd and unsatisfactory rationalizations for it, or make note of it and suggest there will be other Second Amendment cases to deal with. Thus, organizations that purport to defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms (the raison d’etre of these groups), lamely say it is time to move on.
We intend to stay on this. Antonyuk vs. James must be taken up by the High Court. The case is in abeyance. Apparently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is sitting on it. And counsel for the Petitioners isn’t doing anything to urge either the Second Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court to take this case up.
In our next few articles we will take a deep plunge into the failings of both the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit, and the Pro-Second Amendment organizations, too, as they have all dropped the ball on this. We, at the Arbalest Quarrel will not let this matter rest.
Antonyuk is the linchpin for the survival of the Supreme Court’s rulings in the three Landmark Second Amendment cases. Failure to take up Antonyuk, first, and Snope, second, place the seminal cases at risk of drying up in dormancy, as rogue states and the rogue elements in the Federal Government brazenly ignore the rulings of these cases, resulting in an increasingly weakened condition for the Natural Law Right to Armed Self Defense. And Pro-Second Amendment groups aren’t much better. Dealing with new cases when the most important case—a “murder” case—the murder of “Antonyuk” is patently ignored, severely weakens the entire body of Second Amendment jurisprudence and has a decisive negative impact on the whole body of Natural Law Rights, without which a Free Republic—OUR FREE REPUBLIC—cannot survive.
________________________________
*AQ has substantially reworked this article since going to publication on July 22, 2025. The first revision was made on July 23, 2025. The second expansive revision to the essay is dated July 25, 2025. This latest revision was completed this evening, July 27, 2025.