In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state’s prohibition on what the court called “the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens” amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.
Well, almost outstanding. The judge seriously erred when he said, “In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment — the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” That’s not quite the “fundamental right” our Founding Fathers penned into the Constitution via our Second Amendment.
Chief Judge William Traxler erred when he limited the scope of understanding to “in defense of hearth and home.” A “hearth” is the floor in front of a fireplace, where families of old would gather for dinner, usually cooked over that fireplace, and while away the evening hours basking in its warmth, discussing the day, and playing.
Our Second Amendment knows no such bounds, either on location or type and size of arms.
The Constitution states that all ratified amendments become a part of the Constitution. Thus, the Constitution states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This prohibition against the right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. It’s application isn’t limited to a specific government entity. It applies to everyone. Furthermore, it’s scope isn’t limited, either. For example, it’s not limited to “hearth and home,” but rather applies every where a free man may travel.
It’s not even limited to “firearms.” Our Founding Fathers chose the term, “arms,” even though knew exceedingly well that the term “firearms” was a type of arms that used a rapidly-burning powder to discharge a projectile. A sword is also a type of arms, as is a club, mace, hatchet, machete, and knife. They are all “arms.” Thus, any restriction — infringement — on their size, length, weight, caliber, action, mechanism, or capacity constitutes an infringement, and an un-Constitutional one, at that.
The recent poll says 51% of American Muslims think that Sharia law has precedent over the Constitution and that they should be able to establish Sharia courts throughout America.
The question asks whether Americans feel these Muslims should be deported from America.
97% of respondents say YES.
3% of respondents say NO.
Admittedly, the poll is posted on a website — Supreme Patriot — that is unlikely to see much bleeding heart libtard traffic. Even so, this isn’t an opinion piece. It’s a legal piece.
When our Founding Fathers penned, “Congress shall make no law respecting (giving preferential treatment to) an establishment of religion,” they MEANT it, and for damned good reason, including the one unfolding before us.
As for me, I don’t care what they think. I most certainly do care, however, what they do — their behavior.
1. If they’re an illegal immigrant, they’ve already broken the law. Deport them without question or hesitation and bar reentry. We already have laws on the books to effect this course of action. Follow the law.
2. If they’re here legally, but behave in a manner that violates the law, particularly the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, then they deserve the same punishment as anyone who infringes on another’s rights and freedoms, commensurate with the laws currently on the books concerning nuisance, harassment, misdemeanor, and felony behavior.
2a. If their legal status is on a visa, then either prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, or deport them as required by the law.
2b. If their legal status is a U.S. citizen, then prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
The key word throughout is “law.” No one is above the law. Not Obama. Not Holder. Not Lynch. Not Kerry. Not an U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Not Muslims. Not Americans. Not legal immigrants. And certainly not illegal immigrants.
And by “law,” I am NOT referring to “sharia law.” I am referring to “the supreme Law of the Land.” Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
If Muslims can’t respect the Constitution of the United States of America, then they are in the WRONG country. They should get the HELL out of HERE.
The term “infringement” doesn’t mean “prohibition.” It means “an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege.” If I were to move off the sidewalk and walk through my neighbor’s grass, I would be infringing. It does little direct damage, but over time, that section of grass would die. If I then moved over to a fresh strip of grass, that would die, too. When our Founding Fathers penned “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” in our Second Amendment, they created an absolute prohibition against any and all infringements, no matter how slight, in order to protect — absolutely — the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms. Furthermore, this prohibition not limited to the federal government. It doesn’t not say, “Congress shall not…” It simply states that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This applies to EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, and FOR ALL TIME, WITHOUT CESSATION. It is an absolute right, to be protected at all costs, without question.
The United States Supreme Court does NOT have authority over same-sex marriage issues. Our Constitution says so, specifically, in Article III, Section 2: “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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
In case someone missed it, let’s break this down. The judicial power of the Supreme Court covers “all cases in law and equity,” but is LIMITED to cases “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made or which shall be made, under their Authority.”
Our Founding Fathers embedded three restrictions in the latter clause.
The first restriction is to cases “arising under this Constitution.” If the case arises outside the bounds of the Constitution, such as all cases involving “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,” as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment, then the case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The second restriction is to Laws of the United States. This does not include state law. Our Constitution mentions the word “law” 36 times, but the most salient mention addresses this claim head-on in Article VI:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
By “Laws of the United States,” the framers are clearly referring to laws made “in Pursuance thereof.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “pursuance” as “a carrying out or into effect.” Put simply, they’re talking about laws made by the federal government i.e. proposed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over those laws, as those laws are the “Laws of the United States.”
The third restriction is to treaties, either made or in the process of being made. For clear examples of how restrictive the Constitution is towards treaties, please read this, as well as this.
Put simply, if the issue is neither specified in the Constitution nor expressly granted by the Constitution to the federal government, then under the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That’s it. The Constitution specifically and expressly limited the Supreme Court’s authority to only those powers given by the Constitution to the United States aka the federal government. All powers not delegated to the feds nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States are reserved to the States or to the people, and are NOT subject to judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
As marriage issues were never among the few and limited powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has NO AUTHORITY to decide marriage issues. The U.S. Supreme Court VIOLATED the scope of their Constitutionally-derived authority, and their decision in these matters is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.
The Supreme Court is NOT the final authority in the United States of America. WE are. We the People are the final authority. This noble concept of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” is clearly embedded throughout the Constitution, and was additionally reflected verbatim 100 years after the founding of our nation by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address.
Thus, we’ve clearly established the fact the Supreme Court had absolutely zero business even hearing this case, much less rendering an opinion. As if this weren’t enough, however, let’s dig a little further, where we find additional restrictions on the types of cases our Constitution allows them to hear:
2. “other public Ministers and Consuls” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
3. “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
4. “Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. States issue marriage licenses only to the citizens within that state. The federal government is not a party to that dispute.
5. “Controversies between two or more States.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. Ibid.
6. “between a State and Citizens of another State.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. Ibid.
7. “between Citizens of different States.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. Ibid.
8. “between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
9. “between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court make a decision on an issue that falls outside of its legal authority and jurisdiction, it also made a decision that failed to meet ANY of the circumstances in which our Constitution gives them any authority.
The U.S. Supreme Court FAILED the American People by overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction and the legal limits of their authority.
Interesting enough, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, and rightly so, that neither citizens nor law enforcement officers are under any obligation whatsoever to follow or enforce un-Constitutional laws. Ergo, when SCOTUS goofed and rendered a decision that violates “the supreme Law of the Land,” neither citizens nor law enforcement officers are under any obligation whatsoever to follow or enforce that decision, either.
Since the State of Kentucky does not recognize same-sex marriages within state law, and…
Since the State of Kentucky further has in place statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages…
Kim Davis, the Rowan County court clerk was FULLY within her authority to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses under the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Kentucky, and the laws of the State of Kentucky.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction does NOT extend to matters not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and…
Since marriage issues are NOT among such matters, and…
Since the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that an “unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed…”
Ergo, the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is null and void. It is NOT to be followed, considered, or given any credence whatsoever in the matter of same-sex marriages in
particular, or marriage in general. Those who do, including Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, are VIOLATING Kim Davis’ Constitutional rights to do her job correctly and properly within the scope of both Kentucky state law as well as the Constitution.
And in an interesting turn of events, Jack Conway is running for governor in the 2015 gubernatorial election to be held on November 3. Isn’t that special? That and the fact that he’s a member of the… *GASP!* Demoncrap Party should give everyone a proper understanding of the context in which he would threaten to prosecute someone like Kim Davis for… FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION.
The LAST thing either Kentucky or America needs are peanut-brittle-brained politicians like Jack Conway who have zero qualms about throwing good, solid, moral citizens like Kim Davis under the bus.
Here’s a thought, Kentucky: VOTE FOR MATT BEVIN! A vote for Bevin is a vote FOR your Constitutional rights, instead of Conway’s clearly demonstrated ANTI-Constitutional behavior.
I came across the following tidbit and found it to be dead-on accurate. Thus, this isn’t merely a double-whammy, but a triple whammy:
By Jana Jobe I was in favor of Kim Davis being jailed last week in Ky because I believed the media when they said she was violating the law by refusing to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. But, I heard a comment from Mike Huckabee that made me wonder if it was true. So I did a little reading.
Remember in Civics class where we learned that Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court interprets them? Ok, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) into Federal law stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. There was no Federal Law concerning marriage prior to that, so DOMA became THE Federal statute pertaining to marriage.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that PART of DOMA was unconstitutional and some states voted to allow same sex marriage. However, they were in conflict with the remaining articles of DOMA.
The way Federal Laws work is that state law can be MORE restrictive but it cannot be less restrictive than Federal law. So, some states, who voted to recognize same sex marriage were in conflict with Federal Law. Which is the reason the Supreme Court heard the issue again this year. We all know their decision.
But, what we apparently forgot is that since they can’t make law, their decision to declare DOMA unconstitutional resulted in there being NO federal law concerning marriage. Which means, jurisdiction falls to the state. And what that means boys and girls is that Kim Davis IS NOT in violation of ANY law by refusing to issue marriage licenses after the SCOTUS ruling. In fact, if she had issued a license to a same sex couple, she would have been in violation of the state laws of Kentucky, which had voted no on the issue.
Congress failed to be prepared to handle the situation resulting from SCOTUS striking down DOMA by writing a new Federal Law so we are left with the issue being handled at a state level. In the states that voted no on this issue, same sex marriage is not Federally protected.
Jana Jobe is correct. In fact, hers is the third of three rock-solid reasons why the actions of Kim Davis are entirely consistent with both Kentucky State Law as well as the Constitution. None of them have anything to do with her lawyer’s insistence that she be given a “religious exclusion.” Without bringing religion into the matter at all, Kim Davis has a rock-solid, three-legged defense, one that will stand on any one of its three legs.
Thus, I do not understand why her lawyer is leading with the fourth issue, a weak one, at best. In fact, if he’s successful, he will set the stage for all Muslims (and other religions) to refuse to do anything at work that violates their religious convictions while retaining immunity from being fired. That’s definitely not the right approach! Companies need to be able to fire employees for non-performance, particularly when tasks like serving alcohol to airline passengers is clearly stated in the employment contract.
It would be far better for Kim Davis and her attorney to knock this one out of the park from three different angles, all based on rock-solid Constitutional, Federal, and State law, rather than attempt the religious exclusion approach.
What is “the press?” Is it limited to large news agencies? Does the press include small town news papers? How about a college student who hammered out a weekly one-page paper highlighting some of the goings on in the dormitory?
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that clamping down on ANY kind of speech or the press, including, if not especially that which others find distasteful or objectionable, constitutes a direct and heinous violation of our First Amendment rights.
Let’s review: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
The “freedom of speech” part applies to everyone, regardless of the platform or message. The “press” part applies to the press, but what, really, is “the press?”
At 12, Benjamin Franklin became an apprentice to his brother James, a printer, who taught Ben the printing trade. When Ben was 15, James founded The New-England Courant, which was the first truly independent newspaper in the colonies. Was that “the press?” Absolutely.
Fifteen years ago, my first professional article was published in a well-known journal of the IT industry. Was that “the press?” Absolutely.
This very minute, I am writing an article expressing my opinion about our First Amendment’s protection of our rights to freely express our opinions about anything.
So… Is this “the press?”
Even if it weren’t, Congress is still prohibited against making any law that abridges the freedom of speech. Rest assured, however, this blog is most certainly “the press” as mentioned in the Constitution.
High Time for the Fair Tax: Keep Your Entire Paycheck!
– Everyone Pays His or Her Fair Share
– Pay Tax Only on What You Spend
– The IRS is No Longer Necessary
Before we examine what is meant by “Fair Tax,” let’s first take a look at why it’s necessary, as well as how it would greatly benefit our nation:
Acording to National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olsen, “The U.S. Tax System’s most serious problem is the 4-million-word code’s excessive complexity that makes it tough for taxpayers to comply with and difficult for the government to administer.” – Source.
The cost to both individuals and corporations is immense: $168 Billion in 2010. Most individuals aren’t equipped to handle it, and many opt out, falling off the grid, or worse, winding up behind bars. Corporations divert a large chunk of their profits to minimize their tax liability, even to the point of reorganizing themselves around the tax code instead of focusing on productivity.
Our tax code has grown way beyond a leash or muzzle. It’s become a ball and chain, so much so that most corporations have expanded operations into other countries simply because it’s far cheaper. Those countries benefit, while Americans lose.
Taxes are are necessary to pay for services common to the community as a whole. When the burden of taxes becomes too great, however, they are a disservice to the community as a whole. Then the act of merely calculating the right amount of tax becomes so complicated that it costs a significant portion of a corporation’s or individual net income, the system is broken. It has become a “parasitic expense,” one that doesn’t contribute anything towards increasing productivity or revenue, or even the welfare of the community as a whole, but instead merely sucks the life blood out of human effort.
Our Constitution mentions the word “tax” six times, four of which are relevant to the Fair Tax concept:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers…” – Article I, Section 2
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…” – Article I, Section 8
“No Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” – Article I, Section 9
“No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” – Article I, Section 9.
If you thoroughly examine each provision in the Constitution against what is happening today, you’ll see that personal income tax is NOT Constitutional, regardless of how the Supreme Court twisted their ruling to make it sound otherwise.
If you examine how much people and corporations are actually taxes (net effective), you see there’s plenty of room for the Fair Tax to replace all other taxes and provide the same measure of income to the federal government.
If you consider the cost of implementing the current tax code, you’ll find that the IRS budget of $11.8 billion alone is a mere drop in the bucket compared to how much money people and businesses spend on handing taxes. When you realize the entire tax industry is parasitic, that is, it doesn’t actually generate wealth at all, but merely shifts it one segment of society to the other, you’ll realize it isn’t healthy at all. It boils down to a protection racket. Pay tax people to keep you out of trouble, when the real issue involves such a grossly over-complicated tax code in the first place.
If you examine the federal budget for other parasitic, non-wealth-building waste, you’ll find at least one third of the federal government’s $3.504 trillion is parasitic in nature. That is, it does little, and adds nothing to the overall health or wealth of our nation.
If we ever did implement the Fair Tax, a mandatory cap would be required. That’s necessary, given the Congressional tendency to add “just another half a percent…” Well, that’s 10% in 20 years, so how about a big fat NO and a max at 10%. If they can’t make do with 10%, they’re not doing their job. Fire them and give someone else a chance.
I’ll keep this one simple: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI, Clause 2
This part means that NOTHING, regardless of its source, INCLUDING SHARIA LAW, will EVER have any lawful superiority over the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, American Muslims speak out against the enforcement of shari‘ah law in America:
Like many Americans, members of the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) have been observing the efforts of a growing number of state legislatures, which are seeking to address the incompatibility of various shari‘ah court systems around the world with the principles and foundations of our Constitutional republic and its laws. As American Muslims, we believe that the law should treat people of all faiths equally, while protecting Muslims and non-Muslims alike from extremist attempts to use the legal instrument of shari‘ah (also known as Islamic jurisprudence, or fiqh) to incubate, within the West, a highly politicized and dangerous understanding of Islam that is generally known as “Islamism,” or “radical Islam.” – Source
It is up to We the People, however, to KEEP it that way. If we fail, WE ALL fail. Our country fails, destined to fall away just the same as so many hundreds of countries have failed before for precisely the same reasons.
Fortunately, we Americans have a sixth column, one woven throughout the fabric of leadership in our society:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
This section, along with the President’s own Article II Section 1 oath of office, forms the basis of Constitutional constancy: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
U.S. oaths of office aren’t limited to members of the federal government. In fact, EVERY civil, military, and law enforcement officer takes the SAME oath of office, as per 5 U.S. Code § 3331 – Oath of office:
“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.””
This link contains a number of excellent comparisons that demonstrate the irreconcilable differences between the Constitutional Law and Sharia “law.”