Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...Continued...

Thank you, it was a disappointing conclusion I must say.
I will read up on the cases to learn more as try to expand my knowledge. I find it stange that 200 years ago most Americans understood the constitution.
Yet now I doubt if most lawyers truly understand what it means. I believe the original meaning is the only true meaning. Yet it is obvious that is no longer the case. It seems as most Americans dont even understand what is happening. When did it become every court decision was basically a new amendment. George Washington clearly said that we might need to change our government. Yet warned us to only do it by amendments. The constitution wasn't meant to evolve without amendments. He also warned of the danger of political parties. I know it will never happen but; I truly feel banning political parties would be the best thing for this country. I believe they create a divided
populace as well as make politicians have loyalties besides to their constituents. I agree that it seems the conservatives now play the game the liberals started with Roe v Wade. Yet I read what the dissent had to say it was far worse in my mind. I am not a lawyer but it did not comfort me.

 

Sorry to hear that I am proud you made it through. All my arms are family heirlooms for hunting and memory. They would not bring enough to pay medical bills so my decision would be easier I suppose. The few I bought myself don't deserve the same respect. I wish I could have a couple more but more press needs come first. I don't have health insurance. With the affordable care act I would receive free insurance.(at least to me) However I think the idividual mandate is to much power to allow the government to have. So even though it would benefit me I am opposed. I feel my years rather heavy for only 38 but I don't trust the government. They have too much power already I do not wish them to have more. I am always concerned when a president spends so much time to pass a bill. Yet puts off the implementation till after the election. The way I read the lower court opinions led me to believe that it will be affirmed. Not because it was right but because the republicans have plans for the precedent it will set. As well as give the best chance for victory in the fall. That will lower my opinion of the conservative judges; if it comes to pass.

 

I think you are right about the lack of knowledge of the Constitution - ignorance of that most fundamental document is pervasive. (Certainly, when the Speaker of the House of Representatives gets up in public and loudly and proudly misquotes the Preamble, it gives one cause to pause and reflect on the need for an enlightened electorate, not to mention the elected.) And, I can well appreciate your perspective on all this political wrangling.

Personally, and as a lawyer, I don’t find it particularly helpful to attempt to divine the original intent of the framers of our Constitution in every context; nor illuminating to read it by candlelight. We Americans have always been a forward-looking people and not anachronistic in our views. (We no longer go about our lives in powdered wigs and small clothes.) I think it must be admitted that the Constitution is a "living document," as evident by the fact that it has been amended twenty-seven times since its adoption by the several states; which is a testament to the wisdom and foresight of the framers in making provision for such future changes. Surely, they could not have intended that we be ruled by their dead hands.

Times have changed. Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1830's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation as an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century to become the great economic and military power of the Twentieth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern our society. Our "founding fathers" could only be utterly astonished at the America of today. But what would comfort them most, notwithstanding the recent efforts of certain groups to rewrite our history, is that we are still a nation of laws and not men.

 

Both our federal Congress and our State elected representatives may call up the their militias in case of need.

However and from my perspective, simply having a more visible and well regulated militia of persons who keep and bear Arms should act as a deterrent for some forms of crime. So, from that perspective, gun lovers are not really loving their republic enough to lower our tax burden.

 

I agree to disagree regarding your view of natural rights, simply and merely because our Ninth Amendment recognizes that concept.

 

In my opinion, the point of view regarding privacy you present is the inverse of what our Founding Fathers ordained and established for us, by merely delegating powers to our elected representatives and providing for States rights and Article 4, Section 2 of our federal Constitution. The right to privacy and private property are usually secured by State Constitutions.

A question should be, where did the general government of the Union derive any power to deny or disparage any form of individual liberty without due process.

 

Well, sir, what can I say? I think we have had this discussion before, have we not? At the risk of repeating myself, what can I tell you? The basis for your disagreement is your belief in natural rights, which is a fiction. The notion that one has natural, imprescriptible rights is, as Bentham put it, “simple nonsense.” Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816). It is unsupportable: the Declaration of Independence is not authority for such rights. Indeed, the only thing that is “self-evident” is that “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” are not the laws that govern our nation and society. To say that you have rights under the Ninth Amendment is only to beg the question that such rights exist by law; and until you recognize this fundamental fact, you will be at odds with the true order of things.

 

While I have not read the writings of the author you cite; how can natural rights be any form of figment of my imagination for (political) animals where natural rights may include might.

 

“Might”? What, are you referring to the “Law of the Jungle”? Beyond the law there is only savagery - where Kraft macht Recht (“might makes right”) - that is the state of natural law, a scrambling possession unlikely to last beyond the first to challenge them by force. Natural rights are but cold comfort when they can be taken away with impunity. Nonsense! Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. Real rights are legal rights - rights provided and protected by law.

 

Might makes right could be viewed as a "natural" right for non-political animals. Only political animals may have some sense of Justice to go along with their "natural" rights.

 

I agree completely what are founding father accomplished was amazing. The fact that the whole constitution has not been thrown out. Is a testament to those great men who's vision has proven true. I am proud of what America has accomplished. Yet despite the great success some of her citizens have been forgotten. Our jobs have been sent overseas where cheaper labor can be found. Illegal immigrants( who I respect greatly) are allowed to drive wages down for labor we use to perform. I understand the benefits for most Americans; but that does not change the effects, on the ones, that are forgotten. I could write for hours all the ideas in my mind. Yet I have drifted far off topic already. I hope my punctuation has not made reading this a pain. I appreciate the ideas that I will research. As well I hope my perspective has not offended you.

 

The problem with the concept of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance. It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. The words “inherent” and “unalienable” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything need must admit that such right exists by law. Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life’s conception to the final disposition of one’s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law.

 

I find your ideas original and refreshing, which gives me hope for the younger generation. And you express yourself well. (Don't bother yourself with little things like punctuation.) In all the world, there are few original thinkers. Most people, like cautious lawyers, subscribe to the conventional wisdom. New ideas are rare, and more rarely welcome for they portend change, which challenges the established order. It is nothing but amazing how artistic license, not to mention the many scientific and technological innovations, could have managed to survive the tyranny of the status quo.

 

Are you claiming that might does not make right for non political animals in Nature? If not, then how can you claim what you do regarding natural rights?

 

Go live on a uninhabited island - if you can find one - and there you can have your natural rights. The rest of the world is ruled by law.

 

Are you claiming that natural rights for even non political animals in Nature, are not a form of law of the Jungle? If not, then can you please explain why words on formerly blank pieces of paper are more credible as forms of law.

 

Name one right that is not subject to law. You can't. Even the very air we breathe is subject to legal regulation.

Whenever someone gets their nose bloodied by some life experience, they are quick to complain: "There ought’a be a law . . . ." Well, the truth is that there is. There isn't anything we do in this life that is not subject to law. Get used to it.

 

Our Ninth Amendment recognizes natural rights under our form of federal and Constitutional government. In the US, power is only delegated to our elected representatives, with the specific enumerations of powers, rights, and privileges and immunities.

 

No. As I told you before, to say that one has a right under the Ninth Amendment only begs the question that such right exists by law. For example, there is no express right of a person to be married under the Constitution; it is a right retained by the people by the Ninth Amendment subject to the powers reserved to the States or the people under the Tenth Amendment. And while the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a “fundamental” right; it is nevertheless subject to the laws of the State of the parties residence or domicile, viz. it is a right that exists only as provided by state law. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. That’s the way it is, the way it must be, and no other.

 

Thank you, again for the kind words. I enjoy expressing my thoughts, yet among my peers that isn't possible. I share perspective with my children an hope to guide them down a better path than I followed. The benefits of being self-taught is I was never told how to think. Ideas were not forced in my mind.
The drawbacks can be that others do not understand my thoughts. As well as
professional endeavors do not favor self-learned individuals. Yet I would not
change my past if I could. My family is my life, I have earned what I own. The possessions I own are priceless at least to me.

 

You may be missing the point about how our form of federal government was intelligently designed to work; all powers not delegated are retained by the States or the People as clearly and specifically enumerated in our Tenth Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Those powers not delegated can be considered natural rights.

 

That is incorrect. What you are describing is popularly known as the “sovereign citizen”; which is both an oxymoron and fallacious attribution. To be a “citizen” must admit that one is subject to rule that is the prerogative of state sovereignty; to be “sovereign” is to admit no superior rule. The Constitution provides for both national and state citizenship; i.e., one is a citizen of the United States based upon birth or naturalization, and a citizen of the State of one’s residence or domicile. In this regard, the Constitution establishes government by rule of law. All rights exist by law, which authority under the Constitution is vested in three co-equal branches of government established to exercise the legislative, executive and judicial powers. The same is reserved to the states and the people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, subject to federal supremacy except as limited by the Eleventh Amendment.

 

I do not subscribe to the concept of sovereign citizen in a vacuum as a political animal.

Our Founding Fathers clearly stated that we must cede some of our sovereignty in order to form a more perfect Union. Even the several States of the Union ceded some of their "natural" States rights to form a more perfect Union of States.

 

Obama will take our guns. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Within one year, it will be impossible to buy new guns and ammo so stock up now.

Quote from a whackjob in November 2008.

Funny. I still have mine. Mass hysteria is fun to observe...

 

Again, that is not correct. Ours is not a not a true democracy in which the people exercise sovereign power. It is a constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government. U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 4. The only power that is exercised by the people is the power of the polls; and even the right to vote is subject to law (e.g., a person does not have the right to vote directly for a presidential candidate, but for "electors" for the President of the United States as provided under state law). U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1; Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).