Friday, March 01, 2019

How stupid are the judges and legal minds of the US? Not as bad as the People.

Some recent blogs on the authority of governments to prohibit firearms acquisition to people under a certain age and claims that the 2nd amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed have been written lately. Every one of these blogs or articles have erred and erred greatly. Each one has included discussions and evaluations of state laws throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. One major problem: In 1833 in Barron, the Supreme Court determined incorrectly that the 2nd amendment did not bind the states. Prior to this decisions, law books such as Rawle's stated correctly that the Bill of Rights bound the states. Around 1925, the supreme court began a process called the Doctrine of Incorporation when the court decided that the 1st Amendment bound the states, even though the clear language proved no applicability to any government outside Congress. The claim was made under the auspices of the 14th Amendment, which does NOT apply to Rights. Whether the intent of the writers of the 14th was to include Rights or not, the language of the 14th covered only privileges and immunities. Although legal minds today are confused and claim Rights are the same as privileges and immunities that claim is without merit. Rights are endowed on individuals by the Creator. Privileges and immunities are grants of exemption by government and can be revoked. Rights are inalienable, unrevokable. So all this brings us to the inability of the judicial branch members to logically reason through issues. Because the Bill of Rights was ruled inapplicable to the states from 1833 forward and the 2nd was not ruled to bind any part of a state until 2008, ALL state laws from 1833 to 2008 respecting firearms have no bearing on any part of the 2nd Amendment. The amendment did not apply to the states so logically the 2nd had no bearing on the laws passed at state level and those laws have no relationship with the 2nd amendment. Only IDIOTS think they can compare apples and rocks logically. Not a single word in the 2nd allows for ANY government to restrict ANY person from having Arms regardless of what the judges claim. Their claims are colored by the crap they pull out from under their robes ad rub on the document. The Right is endowed by GOD to the individual and the individuals are the People, individuals who solely hold the Right to decide how old is old enough for that individual's progeny to handle Arms. The 2nd Amendment makes not a single reference to HOW one keeps and bears Arms except to say the no government has the authority to infringe on that Right. Maybe the wording should have been more complete but the letter of the law provides no power to the federal or state or local governments to require licenses to carry Arms in any fashion the one endowed with that Right chooses. Everything these judges and legal minds have determined is bogus simply because they either have agendas or they are too ignorant of language to comprehend. Should there be some sort of restrictions based on whether or not a specific person is dangerous to the rest of us? Yes but those restrictions must find authority in the granted powers. The power to prohibit things was never granted to the feds and is dependent on each state constitution when considering the power of each state. See the 18th amendment on prohibition power. Under the paradigm of the American system of government, ALL authority is endowed on the individual who associates with other individuals to form associations such as families, societies, and governments. Each member of an association transfers some authority to that association, retaining all undelegated authority. It matters not if others do not like how someone carries Arms until such point as the majority of members of each society agree to transfer authority to control that carrying EXPLICITLY. There is no "compelling government interest" except in the minds of those who would enslave others. The statement of a Right that pre-exists the Constitution, a Right not granted by but merely recognized by the Constitution such as those of the 2nd Amendment, must contain clear, agreed to limitations, not some restrictions that some persons pull out of their asses any time they so feel compelled to do so. Under the governmental paradigm that is supposed to be at the core of American jurisprudence, each power, no matter how closely related to another power, MUST BE GRANTED EXPLICITLY or that power is withheld. See the power on "coining money" and powers related to that simple power. The 10th Amendment sums up this fact with no reservations. We the People MUST throw off the yokes of bondage placed about our necks by those same individuals We ALLOW to represent us. They have become our masters by usurpation, brain-washing, and outright lying to the majority who are too ignorant and maybe too stupid to understand and function in our God-endowed system of government. We are the BOSS, not them. Even the judges are subordinate to the People. The lies of the judiciary have damaged this Union more than all the usurpations by our elected representatives, who by any measure have lied to the People since the first government began its march toward total control.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home