Does 2nd Amendment Confer an Individual Right to Bear Arms?

Intuitively, I had always believed that the 2nd Amendment protected my inherent right to keep and bear arms for my own personal safety; that this right was derived from “natural law” irrespective of any right to same which may have been specifically granted or denied by either the United States or any of the States.

Further, I had always believed that since the federal government was not specifically granted the right to restrict my right to self-protection, that, in accordance with the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the federal government did not have the right to in any way deny my right to self- protection; that, similarly, since the right to self-defense is an inherently natural right that no State could abridge or otherwise deny that right as well.

In light of the recent District of Columbia v Heller (2008) decision in which SCOTUS struck down DC’s handgun ban as well as its ban on loaded, operable firearms for DC residents’ self-defense and the McDonald v City of Chicago case which protected the right to keep and bear arms from infringement by local governments, my curiosity got the best of me and I decided to explore the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for myself.

Briefly, this is what the Heller decision said: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” and “that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” However, SCOTUS tempered its decision by allowing for “prohibitions against possession of weapons by felons or the mentally ill” or “carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”. In short, the Court ruled that the Amendment’s prefatory clause, i.e. “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, serves to clarify the operative clause, i.e. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

The first thing I discovered is that quite apart from the supercilious and intrusive world of social engineers who continually advocate a wholesale ban on privately owned guns without any allusion to constitutional justification, over the years there really has been a serious and honest difference of opinion among respected constitutional scholars as to the precise meaning of the 2nd Amendment, a difference which the Heller and McDonald decisions finally resolved for every American. While Heller has affirmatively addressed the 2nd Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms who reside within federal territories, the McDonald ruling extended that right to the local and state levels.

But, first, let’s very briefly highlight some authoritative, albeit contradictory, case law on this subject before proceeding further:

1. Barron v Baltimore (1833): held that the Bill of Rights applies directly to the federal government—not to state governments. In effect, the court ruled that states could infringe on the Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government. (Don’t ask. I didn’t delve deeply into the reasoning behind this decision.)

2. Nunn v State of Georgia (1846): held that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and that “the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed or broken in upon in the smallest degree.”

3. Cockrum v State of Texas (1859): ruled that “the right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the ‘high powers’ delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” (Clearly, at some variance with Barron v Baltimore.)

4. 14th Amendment (1868): to address the possible oppression of freed slaves following the civil war and to ensure that former slaves, among other citizens, were able to Keep and Bear Arms for that purpose, Congress passed this amendment which provides that states may not “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (If you can’t get there one way, try another route.)

5. The Slaughter-House Cases (1873): held that only those “privileges and immunities” that “owe their existence” to the US Constitution were protected; thus, the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states because the Bill of Rights protected basic human rights which existed before the ratification of the Constitution.

6. United States v Cruikshank (1876): clarified that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms existed before the Constitution but that the 2nd Amendment, indeed the 1st Amendment, were not protected from infringement by the states or by private individuals. (Here the court ignored the 14th Amendment and parroted Barron v Baltimore.)

7. Presser v Illinois (1886) and Miller v Texas (1894): held that the 2nd Amendment didn’t directly protect against infringement by the states.

8. People v Zerillo (Michigan, 1922): Ruled that “the provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.”

9. Gitlow v New York (1925): ruled that the 14th Amendment prohibited states from violating some of the rights of citizens without “due process” but stopped short of “incorporating” all of the Bill of Rights at once.

10. Since Gitlow, and only on a case by case basis, courts have held that on the strength of the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process Clause”, the Bill of Rights is protected against state infringement. In effect, the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” into the Due Process Clause vide the generally accepted Theory of Substantive Due Process. (Note: today, the 2nd Amendment is one of the last rights in the Bill of Rights to be incorporated.)

11. District of Columbia v Heller (2008): the court ruled that the Cruikshank decision failed to properly weigh 14th Amendment protections and that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

So, though most states protect the individual right to keep and bear arms, the McDonald v City of Chicago ensured that the full force of the 2nd Amendment extended to all localities as well. Particularly in those states where there are no state constitutional safeguards, plaintiffs are especially concerned. Without 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, gun owners are at the mercy of state legislators, social engineering lobbyists and the like.

But, what’s behind the McDonald challenge? In short, the Illinois state constitution states that “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” By failing to “incorporate” 14th Amendment inquiry as was required by Heller, in June 2009 the 7th Court of Appeals reaffirmed Illinois’ power to ban handguns by relying solely—and erroneously—on the Cruikshank decision of 1876, thereby ignoring nearly all other pertinent case law as well.

By contrast, earlier, in April 2009, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit (Nordyke v King) in California concluded that since “the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” that this right is, therefore, “incorporated” into the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and applies to the states.” This decision was on hold awaiting a SCOTUS decision on the McDonald v City of Chicago case. Thus, we had two appellate courts and two divergent views in the same year. The earlier decision relied upon the 14th Amendment as required by Heller and the panel opinion relied upon Cruikshank which had been overruled by Heller. (How mortal jurists be?)

So, owing to the contradictory case law subsequent to the US Constitution’s adoption in 1787, I opted to simplify my inquiry by examining what our framers had to say about all this. Being the real experts, their correspondence and debates carry considerably more weight for me than do contemporary interpretations from either the left or the right.

First, the 2nd Amendment states 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.”

Like all things constitutional, context is absolutely everything, and both logic and a studious level of caution dictate that the expressed intent of the framers should always take precedence over what might be faulty subsequent interpretation. And rather than weighing and examining a dizzying array of contradictory interpretations, I have found solace by relying upon an “originalist” approach to better capture the meaning of the framers in this regard. It just seems eminently more sensible and the least painful path to follow.

Bearing in mind Thomas Jefferson’s admonishment that “on every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”, any conclusions as to the framers’ intent and, thus, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, will be left to the objectivity and integrity of the reader.

From what I have read, the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a check on the standing army and any foreign armies. To wit, Noah Webster and Tench Coxe, the latter an ally and correspondent of James Madison, admonished that “before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” Similarly, George Mason warned that “the colonies’ recent experience with Britain”, in which King George’s goal had been “to disarm the people…was the best way to enslave them.”

Further, it appears that the overarching purpose of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of the Constitution, was to better ensure private rights by specifically proscribing federal violations of those rights. Thus, in short, “well-regulated militia” did not at all mean Congressional regulation of that militia or, by extension, the regulation of the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Also, the text of the Amendment expressly confirms that the right to keep and bear arms is retained “by the people”, and not the states. Important to note too is that whenever the word “regulate” appears within the Constitution’s text, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being regulated. However, in the 2nd Amendment the term “well regulated” describes a militia—not an army reserve or national guard--but does not define who or what regulates it. Thus, from what I could understand, the framers intended that the people comprise an essentially unorganized militia which may, of necessity, be organized and well regulated, but by the people themselves.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton (Federalist, No. 29): “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” Thus, it also appears to have been clearly intended by the framers that law-abiding armed citizens could collectively organize and train and that doing so would not necessarily pose a threat to their fellow citizens, but would, in fact, help “to ensure domestic tranquility” and “provide for the common defence”.

But, rather than further wading through a plethora of interesting, albeit esoteric, and often contradictory opinions let’s take a brief look at some notable quotes of the framers themselves to better understand their meaning and intent with respect to the 2nd Amendment. It’s just more edifying—for me anyway:

1. “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms…” Thomas Jefferson

2. “The people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state…” Pennsylvania Declaration of 1776

3. “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed—unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms.” James Madison, Federalist Paper #46

4. “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.” John Adams, 1787

5. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well- regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” James Madison, 1789

6. “…the ultimate authority…resides in the people alone.” James Madison

7. “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tench Coxe, 1788

8. “The militia, when properly formed,  are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee, 1788

9. “The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping and bearing arms.” Samuel Adams, 1788

10. “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee, 1788

11. “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Alexander Hamilton

12. “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?” Thomas Jefferson

13. “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson

14. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence…To ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference…When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.” George Washington

While there are also many luminaries, like Einstein, Machiavelli, Ayn Rand, Blackstone, et. al, who celebrate the individual right to keep and bear arms, there are notable detractors as well:

1. “Gun registration is not enough; the most effective way of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian population.” Janet Reno. Atty General, 1991

2. “Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, 1994

3. “…Our ultimate goal—total control of all guns—is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition totally illegal.” Nelson Shields, Handgun Control

4. “What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned.” Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, 1994

5. “Citizens! Turn in your weapons.” (English translation of Soviet Union poster 1919.)

FYI: Current US Code defines militia like this: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age. The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard, and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members in the militia who are not members of the National Guard.” Title 10, Section 311(a) of the United States Code.

And, finally, no discussion of the 2nd Amendment can be properly wrapped up without this incisive quote from Thomas Jefferson: “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary of trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evil, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man…”

So, there you have it. Shouldn't the Framers’ understanding of the 2nd Amendment be rendered more authoritative than the stream of conspicuously contradictory legal opinions which followed over the years? The age-old controversy. As said, for me the Framers’ clearly stated opinions as to their meaning and intent necessarily hold sway.

POSTSCRIPT:

Currently under serious assault by Progressives at both the federal and state levels, the inviolabilty of the 2nd Amendment hangs in the balance. Pushback is widespread, and already there are hundreds of Sheriffs who refuse to obey these unconstitutional infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Many States have taken action to nullify federal gun control laws. Stay tuned. This could get very messy.

 

How to Stop Progressive Tyranny COLD

For some time now, and particularly since November 6th, I have speculated as to what can be done to effectively counter the unrelenting Progressive onslaught on our liberties and individual sovereignty.

Sincerely believing that Progressives must, at long last, be boldly and constitutionally challenged and outmaneuvered, and thinking outside the proverbial box, I think I've come up with a plan worth pursuing. But, like any political action plan worth its salt, so much depends upon the honor, political courage and integrity of our key political players. (Sadly, that requirement could be this plan's Achilles' heel.)

To counter the Progressive tyranny, many States are finally getting a spine and asserting their sovereignty by actually nullifying federal edicts, laws, directives and, some day soon I hope, judicial activist rulings as well. And if rule of law is our goal, then nullification remains an indispensable tool in that effort.

From a historical standpoint, the sheer volume of nullification activities over the last four years exceeds anything this country has seen since before the War of Northern Agression in 1861, misleadingly dubbed the "civil war". A very hopeful trend, indeed, and a trend we should all endorse and encourage. For as Thomas Jefferson asserted, nullification is "the rightful remedy" to federal encroachment. (Note: with the fearless and dedicated efforts of the 10th Amendment Center, I suspect that acts of nullification/interposition will be on the upswing in the years ahead. And thank God for that!)

Of course, there's impeachment to stop the madness. However, impeachment's a fine idea ONLY if we can be assured of conviction and removal as well. Otherwise the political tumult occasioning an impeachment process will, for the most part, be of little consequence. And with the Senate firmly in the hands of the  Progressives, I suspect only incontrovertible acts of outright treason or murder by our putative Chief Executive would convince enough Senators to actually convict and remove. (In truth, however, since the ruthless Progressives have become so brazenly unprincipled, I'm not even sure murder or treason would do the trick these days.) Thus, impeachment alone cannot be relied upon to effectively remedy federal lawlessness.

So, here's what I propose. It's a simple, doable and powerful antidote to dangerous federal excesses. More importantly, this plan, if faithfully implemented, will eliminate the need for outright rebellion or secession, unsettling prospects which, in the absence of effective grassroots resistance and political courage at the top, have become increasingly real.

1. Call for Nullification: Bearing in mind that We the People and our immediate fiduciary agents, the States, creators of this union, are the ultimate arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional, when the White House or any department of the  Executive Branch issues an unconstitutional order or directive, or if the Supreme Court issues a ruling which is clearly unconstitutional, and the offending entity refuses to rescind that order, directive or ruling, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Minority Leader must urgently and publically appeal to the several States to nullify those encroachments straightaway. In effect, they must boldly circumvent federal perpetrators of lawlessness and directly exhort the States and the people to disobey and to apppropriately resist.

If the States refuse to honor and act upon those unlawful orders/rulings/directives, for all practical purposes the federal actions are of no force and the feds will have no choice but to back off in those jurisdictions where nullification has been invoked. Such resistance will also help restore the balance of power between the States and the federal government as envisioned by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution. Further, this would place us back on the road to constitutional order and dramatically restore public trust in our representatives.

During these appeals, the Speaker and the Minority Ldr must studiously and clearly explain why such resistance is necessary and constitutionally justified, explicating in vivid and understandable detail the natural/unalienable rights of man, the principles of State sovereignty and the separation/balance of powers doctrine enshrined in our Constitution. And, of course, the exhortation must include a concise explanation of the 10th Amendment would be in order.

*And if these key legislative leaders choose not to take such dramatic action, which I suspect might well be the case, then State Senators/Representatives should promptly and boldly assume this patriotic responsibility for their respective States. Senators and Congressional members have bully pulpits too. They just need to use them.

2. Appeal to Sheriffs: In the same televised address to the country, and as appropriate to the nature of the federal excess, both the Speaker and the Minority Ldr or State Senators/Representatives, as may be the case, should directly exhort all Sheriffs to uphold their oath of office by refusing to comply with any and all unlawful federal orders within their jurisdiction from whatever federal entity those excesses might originate. On the otherhand, the Speaker and Minority Ldr may opt to appeal to State leaders to exhort the sheriffs within their jurisdiction.

3. Impeachment & Withholding of Funds: In parallel, the House should deny funding to the offending office and immediately invoke articles of impeachment against the offending federal officials--not merely threaten to impeach, but formally act to both impeach and remove. This should also include heretofore untouchable, unaccountable Supreme Court justices.

4. Concurrently, take the perpetrators--whomever they may be--to court.

This entirely lawful and principled 4-pronged approach to remedying Progressive overreach and restoring constitutional order would stop the heretofore unchecked Progressive contagion cold, and the authority of the People's House, that being the House of Representatives, will be restored.

In the meantime, patriotic organizations around the country should continue to unite, monitor both federal and State excesses, and appropriately initiate, support and coordinate national resistance wherever federal or State excesses occur.

For whatever good it does, I shared this proposal with the offices of both the Speaker and the Senate Minority Leader. I also copied in Sen. Lee of Utah and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. How much political courage and boldness in defense of liberty they possess remains to be seen.

As Ben Franklin warned in 1787, we have a Republic, if we can keep it. And on Nov. 6th the Republic took it on the chin big time. As Karl Marx noted, "Democracy is the road to Socialism", and Nov. 6th placed us firmly on that suicidal path.

Only political courage and lawful, boldly fresh, intensive and assertive patriotic activism at all levels can avert political and economic disaster and, yes, rebellion. The alternative for us, of course, is more appeasement, accommodation and, eventually, servitude. Which course will we choose?

At long last, ACTION and PATRIOTISM must be more than words. Let's roll!

Is Patriotism Alone Enough?

Of late, there's been much more talk on conservative blogs about uniting and moving forward with more energy and effectiveness. While I am heartened by that sentiment, I am mindful that action always speaks louder than words.

We can do what we can to organize locally, as many of us have done, and to actively participate in the local political party machine to effect change from within, as some of us have also done, but that is simply NOT enough.

The major parties are powerful and influential precisely because they are well-coordinated and well-organized both locally and nationally. Thus, patriotic organizations' deliberately or unwittingly restricting themselves to localized activity and pontificating alone is inadequate.

The truth is we need to be organized both nationally AND locally. Otherwise, we will be less than credible or effective, membership and participation will continue to dissipate, and the country will further careen into oblivion.

If patriotic organizations remain splintered and parochial, we are doomed, as is our country. It's time for patriots to get very, VERY serious and much more activist. Learn from the Left.

Obviously, someone at the national level needs to lead the charge, encourage local and regional alliances, and promote the timely convening of a representative "national convention of patriots" in 2013 which would represent those local/regional alliances, this in order to fashion a genuinely national ACTION AGENDA to take back our country. Who knows, such a convening might even result in the birth of a formidable political party which will attract adherents from both the left and the right. Well, from the right anyway.

Among others, I would urge Allen West and/or Sarah Palin to sound the clarion call for unity and to lead the charge. I can only hope they are reading this. But, assuming they aren't, I emailed a copy of this article to both of them.

A re-energized national Tea Party movement comprised of millions of TPers and other patriots from all over the country coalescing around one activist agenda would seriously threaten the elite establishment and would, I think, compel the GOP to either adopt our first-principles agenda going forward or face the certainty of irrelevance and impotence.

Being organized and well-coordinated on both a local and national level would most certainly stem the Progressive tide and would preclude the contemplation of secession or rebellion. Splintered, however, the TP and other patriotic entities will remain a nearly useless therapeutic matrix of venting platforms. A lot of sound and fury signifying essentially nothing in real terms.

Faithfully grassroots in orientation, but national in scope, patriots' clout would be greatly enhanced. Being thoroughly grassroots, we would be honoring the maxim that all politics is local. But, more importantly, our ground game alone would flip both State and DC elective offices.

As for a "national convention of patriots", think of such a historical convening as the 21st century equivalent of the 18th century Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Just more directly representative this time.  Tell me that didn't make a gargantuan difference in America's destiny! Let history and the basics of "community organizing", the latter which makes the Leftist radicals so powerful inspite of their vacuous and destructive agenda, be our guide.

No more pointificating, whining, woe-is-me, hollow TP rallies to the exclusion of a more activist  nationalist agenda. Much MUCH more is needed if we are to save what little remains of this Republic. Activism works!

On the local level, let each of us begin in earnest the unifying process. And let's make it all come together in 2013!

If not Impeachment, What?

Sobered and deeply troubled by the election debacle on November 6th, and mindful that, over the next four years, Obama and his Progressive minions are now more determined than ever to completely undermine what precious little remains of this Republic, it becomes crystal-clear that a genial solution to our nation's challenges is likekly impossible.

So, what can we do? Well, I think we can eliminate impeachment as a realistic remedy.

Bear in mind that impeachment (indictment) is a political--not a legal--process. A majority in the House of Representatives can impeach, but  2/3 of the Senate (trial) is required to convict and remove a sitting President. And because it is such an onerous and highly politicized process, only two Chief Executives, Andrew Johnson and William Clinton, have ever been impeached, though, significantly, neither of them was convicted and removed from office.

Given the extensive Progressive contagion which has swept DC, both on the left and the right, the chances of successfully applying this two-step process is, therefore, very, very remote. As things now stand, it appears only a flagrant act of presidential treason or murder would persuade the House and Senate to respectively impeach and remove Obama.

Briefly, despite deliberate and all too often successful political attempts over the years to misinterpret the meaning of  "high crimes and misdemeanors", my research manifestly renders Obama both impeachable and removable. Why? We must remember that "high crimes and misdemeanors" aren't restricted to murder and treason. In fact, our Founders considered mal-administration, breach of public trust, abuse of power, negligence and, yes, even immoral behavior, among others, as impeachable offenses.

In essence, an impeachable offense is not necessarily an indictable offense and an indictable offense is not necessarily an impeachable offense. Simply put, an impeachable offense is WHATEVER Congress may say it is at any given time.

That said, I refer you to Canada Free Press which has creditably kept track of Obama's impeachable offenses--50+, so far. As of today, we may be able to add several others, among those being Benghazigate (selling arms to Islamists) and committing US military assets to Libya without Congressional approval. Thus, while the CFP list is hardly exhaustive, it fairly highlights some of the more egregious offenses so far committed by this imperial president. In their totality, these offenses are breathtaking in scope and seriousness. But, again, ONLY if the House indicts, and ONLY if the Senate convicts can this smug imperial ideologue be removed.

From my lowly vantage point, Obama is, hands-down,  the most impeachable chief executive in our nation's history. And because he is constitutionally ineligible for re-election in 2016--this despite an odious proposal by Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY 15th), member of the Democratic Socialists of America,  to eliminate presidential term limits--short of impeachment, conviction or incapacity we have only our God-given natural and constitutional rights of resistance, e.g. civil disobedience, nullification, secession and rebellion, to shield us from Obama's brazen utopian transformation of this union and to prevent our slide into economic oblivion. And to rely on the federal courts to support the Constitution against this Progressive thug is extremely doubtful.

So, yes, folks, sorry to say, but the remedy is now squarely on our shoulders and on the shoulders of our respective States to resist. We can rely on nothing else. Wishful thinking, benign neglect, and prayers alone won't turn the tide and save this country. And with both our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights under attack, now more than ever patriots need to be solidly united. Are we up to it? That remains to be seen...

Stop Politicizing the Massacres

During his recent Newton speech, the President promised to "use all the power of his office"--and then some, I'll wager--to "protect our children." A lofty goal, but why are his words not reassuring, but, rather, cause for genuine concern?

With Rahm Emanuel's "never let a crisis go to waste" in mind, my justifiable concern is that Progressives don't merely seek "gun control"; they seek "people control", which is precisely why their gun control arguments are so often mystifying, twisted, disingenuous, illogical, grossly ineffective, and dangerously farcical.

Without trampling the Constitution, there are eminently practical solutions to better safeguarding our children which do not involve disarming law-abiding citizens. For example, schools are currently “gun-free zones”, an inane invention of the Left, which essentially renders schools "free fire zones" for armed evildoers.  Like in Israeli border areas, one or two armed and trained staffers in each school would dramatically reduce or virtually eliminate the slaughter of innocents. Deterrence with the threat of deadly counterforce works!

If we follow what passes for liberal "logic", to reduce the preventable slaughter in our country across the board, then trains, airplanes, motor vehicles, knives, playgrounds, bows and arrows, stones, cribs and tire irons, among other lethal objects, should also be dramatically curtailed or altogether outlawed. Oh. And let's not forget doctors whose malpractice is responsible for nine times more deaths than gun homicides! Duh.

In any case, let’s insist that an honest, bipartisan, professional, objective and sober cause-and-effect appraisal follows this horrible Newtown tragedy--not more ideologically-motivated palaver which serves only to enhance government control and precious little else.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
 

Is an American Confederation in our Future?

(Written a few weeks before the Nov. 6th election)

I am anticipating that if Obama is somehow re-elected, his reign will be short-lived.

The train of executive abuses and excesses already perpetrated by this imperial president will not be tolerated for much longer.

Faced with the awful reality of an unbridled neo-Marxist at the helm, and at the insistence of millions of irate, fearful and demoralized citizens, I anticipate that Congress will be compelled to impeach and possibly remove him from office. Of course, this assumes that there is a sufficient number of "blue dog" Democrats in the Senate who value their country's future over Progressive ideology. On the otherhand, if Obama doesn't moderate, and if Congress fails to constitutionally remedy the situation, then other forms of resistance will be inevitable.

But, let's say Obama is impeached, but, which is more than likely, the Senate fails to convict and remove? What then?

There is precious little doubt in my mind that many millions of patriots will take to the streets and, eventually, massive marches on DC to curb federal overreach and profligacy will ensue. And if that too fails to rid us of the Obama and Progressive tyranny, then millions will likely resort to outright civil disobedience, and in State Houses the push for nullification and secession will be on the upswing.

The spark? The unbridled Progressive assault on the 2nd Amendment, the bedrock core of the Bill of Rights. Even a patriotic military takeover is not out of the question. And, of course, there is always the specter of a second American Revolution.

Frankly, to prevent the total collapse of the nation, I believe the people will insist upon impeachment and removal. We will be momentarily shaken by this unsettling development, but we will survive intact and, more importantly, we will be on the road to constitutional and economic recovery.

Clearly, this is a critical juncture in our nation's history, probably the most critical since Valley Forge. In the final analysis, we either restore constitutional order nationwide, or the union fractures, and rightly so. And given the deep and likely irreparable ideological divide which already exists in these "united States", perhaps the formation of confederacy of socialist republics on one side and of constitutional republics on the other will be irresistible.

Even without Obama and Progressive tyranny acting as a catalyst for such a dissolution, isn't this reordering of our political system inevitable anyway? I think so, and I think history is on my side.

When our learned and perceptive founders delved into political history to guide them in fashioning an efficacious system of governance grounded in republicanism, they essentially agreed that a republic is successful only when the polity is virtuous, yes, but also when the republic is manageable both in size and population. They well-understood this republic was an "experiment". And while they hoped the experiment would succeed, they were not delusional.

They understood that a large and excessively diverse & corrupted electorate would inevitably undermine republican principles and lead to authoritarianism and centralization, this in an effort to effectively govern; that, historically, the natural inclination of government was to expand its power and control. This, of course, would mean a unitary system of governance which would rely upon a one-size-fits-all formula, a formula which would prove to be inefficient, arbitrary and heavy-handed, and which would, inevitably, lead to tyranny, resistance and dissolution.

One way or the other, patriots will get through tumult IF we remain rigidly united and faithfully determined to safeguard our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some Advice to "Secession Petitioners"

Historically, short of revolution or rebellion, secession is the ultimate practical check on centralization.

No branch of the federal government is empowered to decide upon the merits of a State's inherent right to secede. By its very nature, secession is an anti-federal act not requiring federal sanction.

Petitioning the federal government for permission to secede is self-contradictory and has no basis in English common law or American constitutional history. Secession/rescission/withdrawal is a unilateral action and is not dependent upon mutual agreement between the parties to that contract.

When one enters into a contract and the other party violates that contract, does one request permission of the offending party to withdraw from that contract already violated? Of course not. All compacts are subject to the equitable remedy of rescission in the event of a breach of contract. It's really common sense, basic contract law. It's that straightforward.

At its inception, the US of A was a voluntary compact (contract) of sovereign States, each retaining the inherent authority to rescind its contractual relationship with the federal government, the other party to that contract, should the latter violate the terms of that contract/compact. That contractual relationship hasn't changed, though the misnamed "civil war" may have led us to believe otherwise. (By the way, "civil war" means that two or more factions are militarily struggling over control of the central government; however, in America's so-called "civil war", the South was defending its sovereign territory, not entertaining the capture and control of the central government in DC.)

Force of arms alone by a revisionist, self-contradictory, union-at-any-price nationalist, that being our heretofore venerated Abe Lincoln, cannot--and did not--invalidate a State's inherent right to secede, or to otherwise rescind its ratificaton of this contract, no more than the federal government can legally or constitutionally annul the People's right to rebel in the face of tyranny.

Note: if secession were treasonous, which some maintained it was, why then were not southern leaders dragged into court following the North's successful invasion of the Confederate States of America? Easy. Because the North didn't want to lose in court what they thought they had won on the battlefield.

Perpetual union at any price was never contemplated or embraced by the Founders. Rebellion, secession, nullification, civil disobedience remain essential elements of America's republican fabric, and the threat or application of force on the part of the federal government cannot eradicate those foundational, inherent and unalienable rights of a free people.

When ratifying the Constitution, and only to the extent that it delegated certain of its sovereign powers to the federal government, not once did any State surrender its sovereignty. All powers voluntarily granted by the States to the federal government were very limited and very specific. All other powers not delegated remained with the States. The 10th Amendment enshrined that principle in the Constitution and, in so doing, reasserted the foundational principle that the federal government cannot unilaterally redefine the limits of its powers.  To join the union, the States were not compelled to surrender anything, much less their sovereignty.

And remember, we not only seceded from England, but also, one by one, from the Articles of Confederation (which was said to be "perpetual") in order to form the current union of States, a union which was initially comprised of but 9 States, the remaining 3 sovereign States freely opting to remain outside the union until well after the Constitution's adoption. This "MORE perfect union"--MORE perfect, NOT perfect--was not intended or expected to exist in perpetuity, but, like the Articles of Confederation, only until such time that the compact outlived its usefulness. Our Founders, studious historians, were not stupid men and well understood the corruptibility of men and all that man may devise.  While our Founders  hoped the union would be strong, free and productive, they did not view secession and dissolution as ill-conceived, treasonous or unanticipated. We've just been brainwashed into believing that secession and dissolution are vile, wrong, corrupt and treasonous. Not so at all. If that were true, then our Founders were charlatans and short-sighted fools. They weren't.

All that said, as a first step I recommend that States opt for nullification, the "rightful remedy" as Jefferson described it, to resist unconstitutional acts by the Supreme Court, the Congress, the Chief Executive and their myriad bureaucracies which now comprise the unofficial fourth branch of government. And to render nullification more efficacious, States should enact punitive laws to prohibit the enforcement of those federal acts nullified by the State. This is called "interposition", or a State's insinuating itself between intrusive federal authority and the citizens of the State. Interposition would actually require the arrest, trial and imprisonment of any State OR federal agent who attempts to enforce a nullified federal act. Of course, implicit in nullification is the threat of secession should the invasive federal government fail to retreat to contractual parameters. But, again, secession is not by its nature treasonous or unavoidably violent. Not at all.

Finally, while I sincerely appreciate the wave of secessionist sentiment sweeping the country, secession, a serious constitutional matter, requires a majority of a State's residents to support the act. Anything less than a majority constitutes a protest and nothing more. And even with a majority expressing its support for secession, the people's State representatives must be won over as well, this if the label of  "insurrection" is to be avoided and Art I Sec 8 Para 15 be invoked. Note: per Art IV Sec 4 of the Constitution, "on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)", the feds can be asked to intervene, whether that intervention is morally repugnant or not. Secession is a political act, not merely a feel-good act. Thus, on the subject of secession, both the people of a State and their duly elected State representatives must be one.

So, to the near one million well-intentioned petitioners around the country, this: without a majority within a State as well as State legislative support, secession is an impossibility. Great PR--maybe--but nothing more.

"The source of Lincoln's power was his willingness to exercise power not grounded in the orginal Constitution but in in his creative abilities to undermine the Constitution while rhetorically defending it."  Donald Livingston, "Rethinking the American Union..."

"The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone, as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution." William Rawles (1825)