Wednesday, 8 January 2014

The Amending Process

I have had some further thoughts on the 'Bill of Rights' business as addressed in my blog of Jan. 3, which I would like to 'amend' here.  But first - and related - a bit of an expansion on the theme that I got into in my last blog (of late last night/early this morning), regarding the overreach of the Obama administration's Department of Justice, in arguing, in front of the nation's Supreme Court, for the freedom of religious organizations to select their own ministers being trumped by females's 'non-discrimination rights'.  As though the nation needs to enter into an era of turmoil occasioned by determinations of 'affirmative action' laws/quotas/reverse discrimination/'diversity programs' for females, and then, ineluctably, for the LGBT politicized class of citizens…1   

Anyway; sticking to the main point I wanted to make: this DoJ overreach extends to the point where, under the zealous direction of Eric 'Fast & Furious' Holder, it has gone after police officers, in a number of locales across the country, years after their acts of apprehension and attempted apprehension of bad guys, for their DoJ-accused violations of their presumed victims's 'civil rights'.2    All for two reasons.  The first of which can be summed up in one word:  Rodney.  For the younger of my readership, it may well take two words: Rodney King.3   And the no. 2 reason: The Obama regime's attempt to take over the nation, and employing all the tools at hand.4    


Now to the Constitution; specifically as to the Bill of Rights.  Which, remember, is directed by the States to the federal government.  Is a message specifically to that entity.  But all is not as clear and straightforward as it would seem.  For example.

I don't know what rights the federal government has conferred on anybody (the question of 'incorporation' being held in question for the moment).  As Obama noted in the radio interview mentioned previously, back in his State Senate days, "the Constitution says what the federal government can't do to you" - refers to so-called negative rights - "but doesn't say what it can and should do for you".  The latter the kind of constitution that he wants there to be (and is doing everything in his power to enact, without benefit of legality, except in his 'executive action' mind).  So far, so clear.  But I have a problem with the Second Amendment.  Or to say, with the way that it is worded.

First, the wording:

"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."  My problem is not with the legalistic battle over whether it is referring to collective rights or to individual rights.5  It has to do with who all is being addressed.  On the face of it, it is clarifying to the federal government that the right of a free people "to keep and bear Arms" was not one of that government's enumerated powers to have any power over.  But there is an ambiguity here; at least to my non-lawyer's mind.  To wit: Is there an assumption being made herein that all of the States had this right covered in their State constitution?  Or is there an axiomatic assumption being made?  And if the latter is the case, where does such 'assuming' end??

Each State had/has its own constitution, conferring on and securing for its citizenry certain rights.  So, e.g., the First Amendment - of this Bill-of-Rights example of rights and powers that the federal government was not being bequeathed any power regarding in the new federal Constitution - only refers to a limitation being put on the federal government: "Congress shall make no law…" with such rights and powers remaining on the individual State's level (as clarified by Amendments Nine and Ten), and subject to each State's constitutional qualification thereon.  But the wording of the Second Amendment has a 'ring' to it that makes it sound as though it were simply axiomatic to the federal constitutional Framers that 'the people' have an automatic right 'to keep and bear Arms," OR as though every State constitution had already secured their citizens that right, and it went without saying because of that fact.    

So, I'm at a bit of a loss in this matter.  I do know that the Second Amendment and the whole of the Bill of Rights was addressed only to the new federal government, because of wording in both the Fifth and 14th Amendments.  In the Fifth: "No person shall be…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… "  This federal constitutional amendment did not apply to the States, only to the federal government; and so, unless this multifaceted right was secured by a person's State constitution, they were not guaranteed it by this so-called 'constitutional right.' as clarified by the 14th Amendment, passed years later (in 1868), wherein it states: "No State shall…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" (my emphases).  That is to say: Up until that time (as part of the aftereffects of the Civil War), any State COULD act arbitrarily in this manner, unless its State constitution forbid it.               

But, as I say, I'm not a lawyer, so there may well be more to this argument than I have addressed herein.

But, as I also have said, this whole thing may be a bit moot, with 'the rise to ascendency' - the coming into being - of the new paradigm, and for humanity as a whole.

But not as in support of Obama and his 'down low' putsch for power.  It doesn't matter how high-minded he may think he has been, in wanting to establish his agenda in and for America (and for humanity as a whole).  He has been committing crimes in the pursuit of his end-justifying-the-means vision.  And must answer for his actions.

Else what is a heaven for.   



1 Already the writing is on the wall for that last 'class action'.  See, e.g., the article titled "'Gay' Power Vs. Religious Liberty"  by Peter LaBarbera in the Oct. 2013 issue of Whistleblower magazine; which opens with a quote:
     "'The legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a struggle between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation.'
     "Canadian lesbian lawyer Barbara Finlay, quoted by columnist John Leo and Janet Folder (Porter), 'The Criminalization of Christianity'   
     "There is a war between homosexual 'rights' and Americans' religious and First Amendment freedoms - and the 'gay' activists are winning.
     "The 'zero-sum game' is how homosexual activist law professor and Obama's EEOC (Equal Employment OpportunityCommission) appointee Chai Feldblum describes the legal battles between modern 'rights' based on homosexual 'orientation' (read: behavior) and the traditional American principle of religious liberty.
     "'Gays win, Christians lose,' Feldblum said, predicting homosexuals would win most of the legal contests.  She is proving to be correct, as the news for Americans with traditional values gets worse by the year, due to rapidly escalating homosexual and transgender activist power in the legal, cultural, political and corporate arenas…"

2 Even, In one case, after the bad guy, who it turned out happened to be an illegal alien, had been found guilty of the charge for which he had been apprehended (threatening to kill his ex-gf), and after serving his sentence for that, had been deported back to Mexico - and sought out there by the Obama and Holder DoJ to testify in the sort of case that the DoJ lawyers were trawling through the records to try to find, where there might be even some chance of getting such a conviction; or at least, a trial.  (In this instance, the officer charged with civil-rights violations of the DoJ's 'client' had sicced his dog on the fleeing perp when the latter scaled a fence in trying to avoid apprehension, and the dog got hold of one of the guy's legs, and caused the guy some pain, as did some other measures of apprehension by other police officers who were by then on the scene and who took over the apprehension, as the K-9 officer had hurt his hand fighting with the guy, who was refusing to surrender.   
     Gotcha! said the DoJ team of shyster lawyers.  One of whom may have said: 'What?  That's not enough to mount a case.'  And who may have been answered by one of his cold-case buddies:  'Come on.  We've gotta find something in all this shit.'  And boy, did they find some.   

3 Any more of a clue than that needed, just google the name.

4 And how's that case mentioned above for a message being sent.  'Hey amigos - guess what.  You know those rumors about the federales under Obama?  They're true.   He is for us, man.  Pass the word.  And start packing!'  
     Another message, that needs to be sent:
     To: Speaker of the House John Boehner
     From: John Q. Public
     Subject: Misapprehensions 

     Dear John,
     You know that nice guy in the White House who takes you golfing sometimes?  He's playing you for a fool.

5 My understanding in that contretemps is that it is referring to individual rights, since every able-bodied male in the state was automatically a member of the state militia.  If the state were under attack, or for whatever reason there were a need for a militia callout, it would be all hands on deck.   

No comments: