Exclusive Content > Research

The right to keep and bear arms, our Founders' documented intentions

<< < (3/3)

INVAR:

--- Quote from: Jazzhead on February 24, 2018, 09:24:33 pm ---The one doing the twisting is you.  ...It doesn't take the machinations of a lawyer to read the WHOLE Second Amendment, including the predicate clause.   That's exactly how the Bill should be read, according to what Justice Thomas recently wrote.  The Second Amendment means exactly what it says.   Divorcing the phrase you like from the predicate clause you don't is where the "twisting" comes in.   
 

--- End quote ---

A perfect example here of the 'Deliberate" I was referencing to you @johnwk

The deliberate effort to whitewash the natural right to keep and bear arms not just for self-defense in the home, but especially for the purpose of resisting government tyranny.  When we no longer consent to be governed by a corrupt and lawless government that has voided it's authority entirely and to establish new guards for our future liberty and security; the keeping and bearing of arms as an inalienable and inviolable right, predicates the means and power that a people possess to do so.

johnwk:

--- Quote from: Cyber Liberty on February 24, 2018, 08:48:21 pm ---Ultimately, we end up seeing court decisions being the ultimate understanding of the principles of the Bill of Rights, not the words of the Bill themselves.  Lawyers build entire careers out of twisting the meanings.

--- End quote ---

So do Justices on our Supreme court.  In fact, one actually took it upon himself to admit he was altering the meaning of our Constitution to accommodate an alleged “evolving needs of society”, when the constitutional method to accommodate the "evolving needs of society" is specifically provided for under Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process.


Keep in mind that: ”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) ___ 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language



In the Kelo case, Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:


while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose."

The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society”  to justify its own  “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”.  And this amounts to judicial tyranny!

On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted.  He then concludes:

”
The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”


JWK




Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean. 

Cyber Liberty:

--- Quote from: Jazzhead on February 24, 2018, 09:24:33 pm ---The one doing the twisting is you.

--- End quote ---

What made you think I was writing about you, @Jazzhead?  Paranoid much? :laugh:

INVAR:

--- Quote from: johnwk on February 24, 2018, 10:06:24 pm ---The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society”  to justify its own  “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”.  And this amounts to judicial tyranny!

--- End quote ---

That is exactly the base and position that our resident Leftist argues his agenda from; citing often the interpretations and rulings that foster the 'evolving needs of society' within the 'broader and more natural interpretations' of enumerated rights that is said to be *reasonably regulated*.  This argued ad nauseum while "rights" not enumerated in the Constitution and crafted out of thin air to assuage the 'evolving needs of society', as existing within "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution so as to trample enumerated rights with newfound 'rights' an 'evolving society' has need of in accord of Judicial decree.

Cyber Liberty:

--- Quote from: RoosGirl on February 24, 2018, 09:47:13 pm ---If that is the case then the Federal gov't has no standing to regulate firearms for individual ownership since it is not enumerated within.

--- End quote ---

The Constitution is a rock...except when it isn't. :shrug:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page