I am sorely distressed by widespread misunderstanding of the Constitution, passed down to the citizenry for some time by either a deliberately ideological educational profession, setting out to undercut the Constitution on purpose, or simply honestly mis-taught themselves.1
I was reminded of this today when I saw a sub-headlne in the paper (in its sidewalk dispenser; I don’t subscribe to any daily paper. In more ways than one) that some Circuit Court had declared that the presumed right to Concealed Carry was in fact, quote, “unconstitutional”. Oh, really? And just why, precisely, is that??
Let’s take a look at the 2nd Amendment for a moment. And in conjunction with ALL of the Bill of Rights.
Which are, in actuality, just a few (10) examples of rights retained by the people (as clarified by the Ninth Amendment). Powers that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over. Was not ceded, by the Constitution. Examples of rights and powers ”reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (Tenth Amendment).
The federal government is a government of enumerated powers. Of limited and delegated powers. “Few and defined,” in the rather authoritative words of the particular Founding Father called the Father of the Constitution, James Madison. Who also warned that appending a Bill of Rights to the constitution that the constitutional Framers came up with, in that sweltering summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, might possibly lend to the impression that the federal government could do all sorts of things beyond just what the Bill of Rights set out as specific examples of what it COULD NOT do, had not been granted the power to do. A fair warning. The point being that the federal government would have no such powers even if there were no Bill of Rights.2
And we have been faced with some, shall we say, ’enterprising’ souls who have tried, ever since, to make of the federal constitutional republic of the U.S.A. a centralized form of government, where all power resides in the federal government, except for what it cedes to the States…
Some cite the 14th Amendment on these sorts of questions, of state’s rights vs. federal rights. Let’s look at that amendment, in breakdown format.
1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (emphasis mine) .
What does the term “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean? I could cite the meaning of the term from the historical record, quoting the author(s) of the amendment on the subject, and so as it was understood to mean at the time of its insertion into the Constitutional contract. But for the terms of this personal dissertation, let’s just look at it logically. It means a child born to parents who are lawfully resident in the States - and NOT to parents who are either here illegally, or visiting, or on diplomatic (or similar) service, and thus still subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, as citizens of that country.
This business of ‘anchor babies’ that has been going on - for far too long - is due to a total misreading of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, either honestly mistakenly or deliberately mistakenly; and it has been going on for so long that it must be overwhelmingly, if not totally, due to deliberate obfuscation - on the part of the lawyers and the judicial-branch parties involved - or it would have been overturned on appeal a long time ago.3
2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;…”
I.e., all U.S. citizens must be treated the same, in whatever State they reside, owning what ‘privileges and immunities’ the Constitution vouchsafes them.
3. “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law;…”
I.e,, there can be no arbitrary, to say summary, law applied.
4. “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I.e, the law must be, in effect, color blind; must apply to all citizens equally. The law to be ‘no respecter of persons’.
Now, the South got away for many years with segregation by interpreting the meaning of this last clause to mean ‘separate but equal’. And they finally got shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court for that dodgy interpretation in 1954. As, in my estimation, it should have been; segregation - i.e., separation of the races by ’color’ of law - by its very nature, implying that someone is NOT ‘equal’ to another, by virtue of color or religion or whatever. So, de jure segregation in education was shot down, in Brown vs. Board of Education; and the process, of changing the status quo, has extended from there.
I hasten to point out that that in no way said anything to de facto segregation in the society. Unfortunately, it has been used by unscrupulous persons to pursue a de facto scenario in the country; trying to socially engineer the people, make them conform to some liberal/socialist idea of ’equality’ across the board by virtue of such measures as can rightly be called ‘reverse discrimination’ - quotas in hiring, and such.
Measures to overcome past consequences of de jure segregation are one thing. Measures to make slaves of the entire populace, in subjection to the almighty state, are entirely another.4 And we need to do a better job of drawing that line than we are doing.
But that’s another matter Let this suffice, for now, as a statement of clarity regarding the Constitution, and its various meanings; and basic meaning.
Now, back to the 2nd Amendment. Contrary to what is a widespread belief, the 2nd Amendment itself does not ‘grant’ us the right to keep and bear arms. It just says-stroke-clarifies that the federal government has no power to ‘infringe’ our right ‘to keep and bear arms’. But this is where it gets sticky. The Declaration of Independence talks about “certain unalienable Rights” ”endowed by (our) Creator…” But such rights - whatever specifically they may be - have to be secured for us in and by our State constitutions, in our federal constitutional republic. We can't just arbitrarily assume anything. And if our State constitutions don’t secure our right ‘to keep and bear arms,’ we are not automatically entitled to the right. Such rights need to be codified. And the federal government can stay bloody well out of the matter, as its not being in its jurisdiction. Speaking of such things.
We have homework to do, in all these regards.
And actually, it all might be moot now, anyway. For, we are looking at new governance for
the New Day.
Dawning, now.
And for all mankind.
With the united States of America to lead the way. Like the flagship of the fleet of nation states, sailing into the new seas.
To honor the individual. But in relation to the collective.
Humanity now to move beyond competition. And into cooperation.
A bit of both sides of the equation. Reaching its conclusion.
In a state of Synthesis.
Wholeness.
Reflecting our essential
Oneness.
As sparks of divinity. Of our mutual
Source.
The All That Is.
Wishing, for us - in our state of seeming separation, and polarity/duality; to say, 3D 'reality' (which is really an illusion) -
the best outcome possible.
In 'getting'
the whole picture.
To say:
in waking up to it.
In a way,
like little Rip Van Winkles.
P.S. I just came across a rather appropriate statement, that carries this idea rather well. From ‘Adding Light To Our Political System’ - by Patricia Cota-Robles - June 9
P.S. I just came across a rather appropriate statement, that carries this idea rather well. From ‘Adding Light To Our Political System’ - by Patricia Cota-Robles - June 9
(eraofpeace.org)
“America was to model to the rest of the people on this planet a Higher Order of Being, a New World. This was to be a world that would heal the separation and reflect the Oneness of the Family of Humanity. The United States of America was intended to model the microcosm of the macrocosm for Planet Earth.
“The name AMERICA is an anagram for the I AM RACE. The Divine Intent of this name represents a race of God Conscious people comprised of ALL races, ALL nationalities, ALL cultures, ALL religions, ALL creeds and ALL Lifestyles. A race of people who are functioning within the full embrace of their I AM Presence reflecting Oneness, Divine Love, Reverence for ALL Life, and decisions and actions that perpetually reflect the highest good for ALL concerned.
“Needless to say, we have fallen far from the Immaculate Concept of the Divine Plan for the United States of America, but those patterns of perfection are still pulsating in all of their resplendent Glory in the Realms of Cause. They are awaiting the opportunity to tangibly manifest in the world of form…”
Divine Government. That’s the ticket, to the future.
—
footnotes:
1 I am reminded of the case of the widespread misapplication of it’s and its. I find that seemingly abstruse conundrum almost pandemic - both in this country and in the UK. People constantly apply it’s when they mean its; and I am convinced by now that it is due to the way that it has erroneously been taught, not just due to individual human sloppy error.
People: It’s is ALWAYS a contraction, meaning ‘it is’ or ‘it has’. It is NEVER the possessive. That is ALWAYS its. It is the exception to the rule about the possessive form taking a comma. (The dog’s bark was worse than its bite).
PLEASE start getting this distinction RIGHT for a change. Its misuse is not only a commentary on the poor education that we are receiving; but is a part of the widespread attempt by social engineers to break down the status quo society, and make questions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ merely subject to what the state determines them to be. As in 2+ 2 CAN = 5, if the state deems it so.
2 The federal government has claimed excessive powers by misplaced virtue of the nation being in a quasi state of national emergency ever since a state of war that was declared by FDR. But with no declared war - except the fig-leaf War on Terror - those powers have been abused, and, indeed, usurped.
In a way it’s like taxes that are levied during war time for wartime purposes, and then somehow stay on the books subsequently. But is a far worse example of such a ‘habit of power’ than that. Power, as we know, tending to corrupt. And absolute power...and so forth.
3 This must be a case of what is called relying on ‘precedent’. But bad, even outrightly false precedent is not ‘precedent’. It is error. And needs to be dealt with accordingly.
(This subject also brings up the business of what is called - by lawyerly types - ’incorporation,’ whereby the legal beagles try to make out that the 14th Amendment ‘incorporated’ all of the Bill of Rights in its assigning to the federal government the power to administer them, which ‘no State shall’ overrule. But this is all smoke and mirrors stuff. There is NO WAY that the intention behind the 14th Amendment was to turn the Constitution on its head and say, in effect, ‘All the powers formerly reserved to the States or to the people shall now reside in the federal government’.
Get thee behind me, Satan. I will have none of such nonsense.
But to continue.)
4 In a book by Swedish socialist scholar Gunnar Myrdal - a tome cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in its determination in Brown vs. Board of Education - he said:
“In the battle between liberty and equality, equality is slowly winning.”
And thus, the clear awareness that these ‘activists’ on the Left are not out for simple de jure equality. They want people to be under the thumb of the state totally. No freedom of association, e.g., to be allowed. Because birds of a feather might flock together, you see. And WE - the high-and-mighty representatives of the state - cannot have people flocking together as they see fit. They must flock together as WE see fit. Because WE know better than they do what’s best for them. WE are arrogant sons of bitches -
no, strike that. Got carried away there, for a moment. I of course meant to say that WE are omniscient, you see. And infallible. And almighty powerful.
Look on My works, ye peasants, and despair…
No comments:
Post a Comment