DOMA, Homosexual “Marriage”, and the Second Amendment

By Pat Henry / 11 May 2013

The Obama administration is doing all it can to bring about the “change” it promised in 2008. If you consider the continued economic and social devastation that it is wreaking “change”, it is doing a very good job. We had grown pretty complacent having jobs, a stable currency, world leadership, and safety so I guess people were bored and decided to try unemployment, food stamps, poverty, and fear as more exciting alternatives.

Obama did not just promise change, he promised to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”. Poverty, crime, and insecurity are not fundamental changes; they are simply the result of a complete lack of leadership and applying wrongheaded policies.

Fundamental change is something else again – a complete restructuring of the most basic foundation of American law – the Constitution.

The Constitution embodies the wisdom of the Founders, and has been a hugely successful basis for law that has created more wealth and freedom for more people than any other document in history.

But, like all documents, even the Bible, it cannot answer questions about itself and what it means, so it must be interpreted. Its authors understood this, so they provided the Supreme Court to answer these questions.

This is the way law works. There is salutatory law, the written law, and case law, the body of decisions that past courts have made about how the statutory law is to be applied in specific cases.  When a question comes up, courts rely upon the law itself and what past courts have said in similar cases to reach a decision.

Although that sounds pretty simple, it is not, particularly in 2013. Many of us look at the results of court decisions, like the famous elderly lady who successfully sued McDonalds for serving her hot coffee, and say, “Huh?” How could the court come up with a nonsensical decision like that? But then, do you always agree with your family or friends?

The same is true with Supreme Court Justices. You would think that a group of people who are highly educated in a particular field would all agree, but unfortunately that is not usually the case. Even doctors often do not agree, which is why you get a second, and maybe third, opinion. With lawyers it is even less likely that they will agree. Although it is not possible to predict how a Justice will vote, as Chief Justice Roberts recently proved, we can loosely lump them into one of two camps.

The first can be called constructionists, or originalists, a term some prefer. These justices try to understand what the original intent of the Founders was when they wrote the Constitution, and use that interpretation to reach a decision. They view their role as to merely apply that intent, not to create or repeal parts of the Constitution. Justice Scalia has written on what he calls the “original meaning” theory, which is simply what any reasonable person at the time of the writing of the Constitution would have thought it meant. Sounds simple, no?

Strangely enough, however, the concept taught in the overwhelming majority of law schools and embraced by a huge number of judges, and all judges that Obama would consider appointing, as well as the majority of the current Court, is the so-called Living Constitution theory. The notion is that the Constitution is analogous to a person, which is constantly growing and changing, along with society.  These justices believe that the Founders actually intended for the Constitution to be “flexible” and deliberately wrote it in broad and flexible terms so that the Supreme Court would have the flexibility to change its interpretation with time, to avoid supporting “outdated views.”

I think you can see the logical conclusion of the “Living Constitution” theory – the words mean nothing, and only the opinion of the Court matters. Indeed, case law means nothing, because it simply reflects “outdated views” and is no longer relevant. We are seeing this at the moment, as the Supreme Court considers DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Since time immemorial, marriage has been between one man and one woman. Yes, there have been societies where polygamy or other heterosexual variants have been allowed, but there has never been a society where homosexual unions were called “marriage” and equated with heterosexual unions. The Congress codified that in the DOMA passed in 1996 and signed into law by Bill Clinton, who said, “I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages, and this legislation is consistent with that position.”

In 2011, however, Mr. Clinton had a change of heart, as many Americans have under the relentless pressure of the Left, and now thinks that the Supreme Court should declare this act unconstitutional. So what? Who cares? Let them have their weddings. How does that affect me?

If in 1996 DOMA was Constitutional legislation, then under the originalist or constructionist theory it would STILL be Constitutional. What has changed between 1996 and 2013? A lot has changed. Mr. Clinton, ever the “populist”, was notorious for changing his views, and his governing style, to fit the mood of the people, which was the secret of his successful presidency. His public positions are a good indicator of the mood of the country, and DOMA is now considered by many as an example of an “outdated view”.

The Living Constitution justices, therefore, would not consider themselves inconsistent if they decide that what was OK less than 20 years ago is no longer OK. The 900 pound gorilla in the room is that this sort of thinking means that none of the rights that we were guaranteed by the Founders embodied in the Constitution mean anything. Under the “Living Constitution” theory, we no longer have rule of law, we have rule of judicial fiat, based upon pressure by whatever elements of society are most successful in making their views heard. Since the 1960’s we know what part of society that is – the Left.

So, keep your eye on the Court’s decision on DOMA and homosexual “marriage”. If the Court decides that thousands of years of human history, not to mention hundreds of years of American history, can be overridden with the stroke of a pen, you can expect all your freedoms, religion, assembly, speech, and your right to bear arms, to fall like so many dominoes behind it.

http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/05/doma-homosexual-marriage-and-the-second-amendment/

NOT NEGOTIABLE: 2nd Amendment Quotes

Get a bunch of Navy Seals together; fully armed, and make the MSM news anchors read this over national TV.   Gold font my emphasis – “X”  Thanks to Gds44, and News You May Have Missed, who reposted this from this blog.

  

 

Jen Kuznicki

Conservative writer

A Treasury of Quotes About Our 2nd Amendment

By task On January 3, 2013

What the Framers said about our Second Amendment
Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State.  In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense.  The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.  The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
–John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.  The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.  A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

“Who are the militia?  Are they not ourselves?  Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom.  Congress have no power to disarm the militia.  Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…  The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
–Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion.  The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
–Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?  Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

“The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed.  A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”
– Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?  Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress?  If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress?  If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
– Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!  Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone …”
– Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.  They are left in full possession of them.”
– Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms …  The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
– Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959                                                                                                                                                                            Reminder – H.H.H. was a Democrat – “X”

“The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers.  The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

” … most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”
– James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

“The right [to bear arms] is general.  It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.   The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon….  If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
– Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…. ”
–Samuel Adams

 http://jenkuznicki.com/2013/01/a-treasury-of-quotes-about-our-2nd-amendment/

 

The rabbit-hole, Succession, WND: Time to consider separation, divorce

 Excerpt – Alice in Wonderland:

“suddenly a white rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her. There was nothing

so very remarkable in that ; nor did Alice think it so very much out of the

way to hear the Rabbit say to itself, “ Oh dear ! Oh dear ! I shall be too

late !” (when she thought it over afterwards, it occurred to her that she

ought to have wondered at this, but at the time it all seemed quite natural);

but when the Rabbit actually took a watch out of its waistcoat-pocket,

and looked at it,  and then hurried on, Alice started to her feet, for it

flashed across her mind that she had never before seen a rabbit with

either a waistcoat-pocket  or a watch to take out of it, and, burning with

curiosity, she ran across the field after it, and was just in time to see it

pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge. In another moment down

went Alice after it,  never once considering how in the world she was to

get out again. The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way,

and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment

to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down what

seemed to be a very deep well.”

The book was published in 1865, so don’t think Mr. Carroll was doing recreational drugs. “The Matrix” notwithstanding,  this “succession” business was beyond my imaginings. The consequences of going down the rabbit hole could mean a world without the U.S.A.  “X”

http://pumabydesign001.com/2012/11/13/47-states-petitioning-white-house-to-secede/

 

 

 

Exclusive: Joseph Farah says principled Americans must insulate selves from judgment

Published: 8 hours ago

 by Joseph Farah

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate.

Divorce is an ugly word.

For devout Christians and Jews, it’s a particularly unthinkable term.
The Bible strictly discourages it, even forbids it, except in the most exceptional circumstances.

But for Americans faithful to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the heritage of sacrifice and liberty that set apart this country from the rest of the world, it’s time to consider separation and divorce from those who have committed adultery.

The election of 2012 provides more stark evidence that we are not really one country, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We are already two peoples – those of us still loyal and faithful to the God-inspired founding American principles and those who have gone awhoring after the idols of government coercion and doing what’s right in their own eyes.

In short, as I have written before, America is flirting with profound judgment. If those of us who disapprove of the same-sex marriage, abortion, tyranny, collectivism, the coerced subversion of religious freedom and forced taxpayer support for the spreading of ungodly, unbiblical values and laws want to avoid that coming judgment, it’s time to separate ourselves wholly from participation.

I don’t pretend to know exactly how this works.

America is a big country that is thoroughly permeated with this treasonous, immoral, adulterous lifestyle.

But I am convinced we’ve got to begin forming new communities of the faithful and declare our separation and independence once again, just as our courageous founders did 236 years ago. Like them, we need to be prepared to defend ourselves, our families, our fortunes and our sacred honor

MORE AT:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/time-to-consider-separation-divorce/

 

Here is a video version of this column:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/scalia-vs-thomas-jefferson-on-secession/

Liberty Tree – Patriot Action Network

Liberty Tree – Patriot Action Network.