Tuesday, 5 August 2014

On Basic Misunderstandings

I get mail…

There is a basic misunderstanding going on in America.  How it came about, I'm not sure.  The problem ultimately lies - has to lie - at the feet of the educational systems in the country.1  In any event, it needs to be clarified, for us to move on from where we are at.  Which is in a muddle.

Take "the Second Amendment".  Some - most? - patriot-minded citizens say/think 'we have a Constitutional right to '"keep and bear arms," as guaranteed by the Second Amendment'.  

'Guaranteed,' how??

1) The Constitution of2 the United States of America protects its citizens from actions of the federal government, protects (not properly secures; see next) basic rights from interference by that government (which is a government of limited and delegated powers).3        

2) Your state constitution secures your rights for you  Else you cannot exercise them.  You may have them, in a theoretical sense.  But constitutions make them - turn them into - law.4 

Now, having said all that - by way of clarifying the fundamental difference between the federal Constitution (which is a limitation put on the powers of the federal government) and individual state constitutions (which are limitations put on the powers of the individual state governments) - let me address a further point.  

The Constitution - the federal/national constitution; as signaled by capitalizing it - also says, in its Art. IV, Sect. 2: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."  I'm not sure precisely what this means.  And this 'ormuation' is also carried over into the 14th Amendment (added later;  in 1868); to wit:  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…"   

We will need a good lawyer, or several such good lawyers coming to a learned consensus, to tell us what, precisely, these statements mean.5  But in the meantime, we would do well to understand the basic difference between the federal Constitution and the state constitutions.  They cover different areas of governance, one, and two, the constitutions of each state can differ from the others, in various respects.  As regards abortion, and the right to bear arms in self-defense, and so forth.

Let's get straight on all this.  But one thing is certain: 

the federal government does not rule over all.  Is not a 'centralized' government.  Is a federal government.  A federal constitutional republic.

And don't let us forget it.

Nor let it forget it.  And start riding roughshod over us.

As it is today.  With a tyrant in charge; exceeding his powers terribly.  Who is not a law unto himself.

Though he may think he is.  

Though he obviously does so.

And it is our job to rein him in.

Since our elected representatives have proven to be not up to the job.  Which they were, in part, elected for.  To retain the 'separation of powers' principle inextricably embedded in

the Constitution.  For the nation.

A republic.

Not an empire.

Not for long, anyway.

All tyrants, and would-be tyrants:

please take note.

And note, that we may only say Please


And then the onus is on your shoulders.

Not the government.6



1 which are slowly, slowly being molded into one.  Another subject.  Though related.
     And in the meantime: Do all you patriots can to stop the Common Core curriculum in its tracks.  It is not what it is being sold to be.  It is the equivalent to what went on in Nazi Germany.  During that reign.  And leading up to it.  Leading, more accurately, to it.    

2 for??  Another question; for another time.  Relating to an attempted takeover of the United States, and its being turned into a corporation, to be controlled by the same PTB that controlled England.  And are trying, in our time, to step things up a notch, and take over the world.     

3` "Few and defined," in the very 'defining' words of 'the Father of the Constitution,' James Madison.
     As to this issue: the federal government, under both Bush Jr. and the Usurper, has apparently been trying to sell the idea that it can engage in wholesale, police-state-type spying and other civil rights-destroying activities because the country is in 'a state of national emergency,' because of the so-called War on Terror.  And just so, do tyrants from time immemorial try to justify their actions.
     In the beginning.  Before they just take over, and say to hell with such niceties/naive attitudes as the rule of law.

4 The Declaration of Independence: 
     "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - so far, so theoretical - " - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…" etc.  
     How are they 'secured'?  By the individual states' constitutions; which are formulated by the (consent of the) voters of that state.  

5 from their original intention.  
     Let's have no more of this silly Humpty Dumpty,'words mean what I say they mean' nonsense going on in this country.  A contract is a contract.  You want to change it, you need to secure the permission of all of the parties to the contract.  Not play unilateral gamesmanship.

6 P.S.  I freely admit that I am not a lawyer.  I just have a good degree of (in??) common sense.  And that tells me that, in a federal republic, if the citizens of New York State, e.g., approve, via its constitutional means, abortion by demand, so be it, that's their choice (and they have to live with it); and if the citizens of Idaho, e.g., approve, via its constitutional means, a ban on all abortion, period, so be that.  There is no one-size-fits-all in a federal republic, when something is not, properly, a federal issue.
     The far Left statists under Obama are trying to make the United States of America over into a centralized form of government, the easier to control, and fit into a socialist New World Order.  (Wherein a 'redistribution of wealth' is to take place.  That is to say, stealing from some to give to others.  A poor plan.)  They should not be allowed to get away with their best-laid plans.  Theirs is a pale imitation of the Real Thing aborning.  The American federal republic shall come into its fullness, as a unitary nation-state, only at the genuine End Time; not under the antithetical rule of atheists and power mongers.  The fullness of the form, then - at the true Synthesis stage of this grand historical operation that humankind has been involved in; when the world as a whole will be under one rule - is reserved for the arrival of Another.
     He who has ears to hear...

No comments: