Why did We The People form a Federal Government — or any government?
"… to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…" — The Declaration of Independence
Can courts — even the Supreme Court — Make law?
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. — Article I, Section, 1 Clause 1.
If I have 100% [All] of something in one place, how much of it can exist in all other places combined? That leaves 0%. Could this mean that the Supreme Court cannot make Any law according to the Constitution — or do they have powers that come from somewhere else? They have occasionally claimed extra-constitutional powers or "the inherent powers of sovereign nations" or some such other nonsense. According to the Declaration, their "just powers" come "from the [informed] consent of the governed."
Since the Supreme Court Justices take an Oath to the Constitution they are duty bound to recognize the separation of powers that was so carefully crafted into it. They are only lawfully authorized to settle Cases that are lawfully brought before them. Even Lincoln believed that — or at least he said he did.
We The People, through our agents, the States of the Union, formed the federal government to protect our lives and our property, and to do all other lawful acts within the bounds of their jurisdiction and the specific written set of instructions found in Article I, Section 8. Then, We and the States of the Union, retained all of the rights that were not explicitly surrendered. Therefore if anything is indefinite it would be the expanse of our retained rights — and Not the limited, delegated, enumerated, specific, separate and distinct powers conferred upon government. Those five terms prescribing the bounds of the lawful powers of government are prominent in the writings of the Founders and Framers. Imagine how constricted the powers of the federal government really are, under written law, when all five of these principles are consistently integrated.
To say the People were giving government a license to meddle with our unalienable rights goes so far beyond stupidity and a lack of legal scholarship. It is as disingenuous as it is seditious and treacherous. This would leave no reason for any written compact of government — and certainly no reason for going through the formalities of taking Oaths. It is tantamount to saying the government was formed to destroy the fundamental liberties of the People at its caprice. It is quite appropriate to say we only lend certain limited powers to government and reserve the right to take them back when they are abused.
In the Virginia Declaration of Rights we read, "…all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them…"
Notice that All lawful power flows Down from the People through their Counties and States, and finally to something that should seem very far away and less relevant to their daily experience — the Federal Government. It is the Creature of the People and the States. As a Creature it is Lawfully Amenable to its Creators. Once again we see a 100% statement that leaves no plausible source for extra-constitutional powers.
To understand what is happening we need to familiarize ourselves with the term"Sophistry": Fallacious Reasoning — Sound in Appearance Only! Another related term that belongs to the murky lexicon of legalese is "Dictum" — which refers to many things that judges say when they probably ought to be more discreet. A nicer way to put it might be, "a judge’s expression of opinion on a point other than the precise issue involved in determining a case." Even this definition is infected with some sophistry. When a judge is speaking in Dictum his opinion carries no more weight than any ordinary layman or citizen — and it has no force of law. As Mencken said, "A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers."
Why did we Ratify a Bill of Rights?
"… in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, …" — Preamble to the Bill of Rights
The ratification documents of the States are more specific and detailed, and leave no doubt that the Federal Government was/is bound to be amenable to them and We The People, since they were the Agents through which the People created the Federal Government. Preambles have no force of law — but they are relevant to our understanding of Intent.
The word, "Amenable" is another very interesting word. It does not mean the government only has to sit and listen to us and then it can do as it pleases. It means that All remedies must be maintained Sacrosanct. In other words, it means all necessary operations for correcting errors must be constructively available to the States and the People collectively and individually at all times. It means you ought to be able to get swift Justice for any and every violation of the Constitution — along with policies put in place to maintain Constitutional checks and balances. It means the government ought to be Accountable.
Amenability "at all times" means, among other things, that there are No Emergency Powers, No Executive Orders, and No Judge-Made Laws that can affect or infringe the God-Given Rights of We The People or Me the Individual. That is what We signed up for!
If you ever had a Right to Keep and Bear Arms — you have it now — and Government can Never take it from you Lawfully. It is unalienable, and it is necessary to protect your own life and property, and the lives and property of your family and neighbors — even the Union — against all enemies foreign and domestic.
The notion that certain weapons are not suited to personal protection is also sophistry that preys upon gross ignorance. You need such weapons as can overcome every potential enemy. If you need to shoot 12 attackers you will need more than a 9-round clip.
Another consumer note: Governments at all levels have been excused by the courts from any legal obligation to protect you or me. That’s right! If you are murdered in your bed right next to the police station after you had been dialing 911 for three hours, you will have no standing in court against the police department.
Logically speaking… who does that leave to protect you? Could it be You? Not really. It could also include any voluntary association of citizens engaging in lawful behavior. It might also include your County Sheriff, his Deputies, or the Militia.
The Founding generation would be astounded to know how naïve we have become if we expect the police will be able to adequately protect us. Statistically we need even more protection in densely populated areas where there are more policemen per capita. If we had read the Founders and Framers more often we would not be so easily taken in by sophistry. Gun control sophistry can be most deadly.
What happens to an unarmed populace when their own government decides to murder them? What sort of government is to be feared in this regard? How about Any government — especially one that is growing like a Metastasizing Tumor both Internationally and Domestically?
I just did a search to see how the current DC gun case is going in the Supreme Court. One of the headlines said, "US high court considers landmark gun-rights case":
…The court’s ruling, expected by the end of June, could have a far-reaching impact on gun control laws in the United States, estimated to have the world’s highest civilian gun ownership rate, and could become an issue in the November election…
Please follow that link above and read every word very carefully. The Media is engaging in Sophistry in anticipation of Dictum. Do they realize what they are doing? It is interesting that this version is tailored for African consumption. The source is Reuters: Africa. I would be more comfortable with an international Media that recognized the Unalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms as universal rather than uniquely American or archaic.
Is it possible that the country with "the world’s highest civilian gun ownership rate" is also the most free? Look around the world. What do you see?
The Congress, not the Court, has Plenary Jurisdiction over the Seat of Government [called Washington, DC].
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,… — Article I, Section 8, Clause 17
Once again we see a 100% situation indicative of the separation of powers. Considering the above Clause, how much power does the Court have to Legislate for the District? The answer once again: Zero!
Also realize the title of the article is in itself very misleading. We have no "High Court" under the Constitution. High Courts, so-called, are appropriately called that because they are instituted in countries with no protections for unalienable rights. In the portion quoted above there is a glaring error: the writer not only assumes the Supremes make law. He also assumes they can overrule existing laws within the States of the Union. Thus a non-lawmaking body can strike down laws in foreign jurisdictions!? Now that would be "far reaching impact!" Do you see how much the MSM is trying to help these people?
Rousseau once asked why the Spanish Conquistadores needed to risk their lives traveling across the seas to plant flags in the sands of American shores, in order to claim those lands, which were already inhabited by other peoples, for their Monarch. He mused that if the king had such a right, he might just as well have declared the transaction Consummated from his sitting room.
The States of the Union are Not within the original Jurisdiction of the United States as it pertains to the Congress or the Court. And it doesn’t matter how many wicked precedents exist from the time of John Marshall and Alexander Hamilton forward. A Million wrongs will never make a Right. The longer it takes to correct this Obscenity — the closer we are to absolute judicial tyranny.
The understanding above is radical — and it was firmly held many other radicals including Jefferson and Madison. But it was common sense when the Constitution was ratified in 1788.
Here’s a deal for you: If you don’t want to retain your God-Given Right to Keep and Bear Arms, just make an Affidavit and sign it over to me. You say you would never do that? I say you can never Lawfully do that. It is an Unalienable Right. You can’t get rid of it. You can deny it at your own peril — and then face God and say, "It just didn’t make sense to me not to trust my own government, when the only thing I had to go on was all of recorded history."
“If men, through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” — Samuel Adams
Slaves are unarmed and prisoners are disarmed. Free men have the weapons of their own free choice without government infringement.
Guns Don’t Kill People — Governments Do!
It is a disturbing contemplation that you may ultimately be forced to choose to be murdered by your own government rather than to live as a slave. And it has happened many times in recent history. It is not just a historic anomaly. Forewarned is Forearmed. As the saying goes, "I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."
The Supreme Court should be Impeached and Removed en masse if they utter a single word alluding to any lawful power to touch our God-Given Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This would include any Dictum or Sophistry inferring that a ruling in a case brought in DC could set a precedent overruling so-called gun laws within any of the States of the Union. A unanimous decision against a God-Given Right would only confirm their unanimity in Sedition. But it would still be a Nullity Constitutionally speaking.
If the Court has no authority to rule on the matter — why is the case being brought before them? Click here to hear another point of view from one of America’s leading Constitutional Scholars: Dr. Edwin Vieira.
We The People have No God-Given Right to Surrender our Arms!