Saturday, January 26, 2019

Shutdown Temporarily Halted

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

No, this is not Donald Trump's "read my lips, no new taxes" moment.  He has not given in, he has simply allowed a three week cease-fire in the battle over the budget, and funding for his border wall.

The bill signed by President Donald Trump yesterday reopens the government for three weeks.  It funds shuttered agencies until February 15, and then at that time the battle-ball gets thrown into the court, again.  Trump believes, during the recess from a government shutdown, that he will be able to persuade the Democrat Party Congress Critters to finance his long-sought wall.

The current three week deal he reached with congressional leaders contains no new money for the wall, but it does end the longest shutdown in U.S. history ... for now.

“This was in no way a concession,” Trump said in a tweet.  “It was taking care of millions of people who were getting badly hurt by the Shutdown with the understanding that in 21 days, if no deal is done, it’s off to the races!”

The Democrats are proud of their obstructionism.

“The president thought he could crack Democrats, and he didn’t, and I hope it’s a lesson for him,” said the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of her members: “Our unity is our power. And that is what maybe the president underestimated.”

“If we don’t get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut down on Feb. 15, again, or I will use the powers afforded to me under the laws and Constitution of the United States to address this emergency,” Trump said.

The president has said he could declare a national emergency to fund the border wall unilaterally if Congress doesn’t provide the money.

That would be when the judges would go into action, trying to stop him do that, as well.  I just hope that if that's the road he travels, the President has enough sense to tell the courts to "kiss off."  The courts, after all, according to the U.S. Constitution, have no enforcement power, nor any authority to strike down any of his actions, or executive orders.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Friday, January 25, 2019

New York's Abortion Law's Progressive Step

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The Democrats say they embrace progressive ideas.  What they mean is they believe in change, no matter what the change is, and pretty much every change they push for is a move in a direction that can be called nothing other than "evil."

Progressivism is about pushing the limits, breaking the norms, and moving the envelope just a little closer to the edge.  Whatever it is they are doing, tomorrow they will rally and demand the destruction of more boundaries.

Abortion in America, we were told at the time, began with the claim that it was only for cases in which the woman's health was in danger, and only during the first trimester.  Liberals claimed they would never call for the termination of a pregnancy of a viable baby who could survive outside the womb.

Then, the progression began.

Eventually, abortion was being used as birth control.  Abortion pills are now available over the counter, and while chemical abortion in one's own home is supposed to be only for immediate disposal of the little baby before its development begins (hence, the name "morning after pill"), and the warning label calls for limited use, we have girls popping these things like tic-tacs (which means they are literally sterilizing themselves), and stories of horrified girls, after the discharge of the baby into the toilet, realizing that the tiny little being in the water below has fingers, and toes, and a cute little face.

Now, the State of New York has legalized abortions up to the day before delivery.

Yes, the purveyors of this new law says that late-term abortion is only allowed in situations where it is believed the woman's health is at risk, but we only need to refer to the last fifty years to see where that's going.

Within a few years the Democrat Party death cult will find a way to claim that any and all late-term abortions are fine, and somewhere down the road they will then follow the advice of people like Cass Sunstein, and murder babies after they are born up to the age of two years old.

In the latter years of its existence, as it decayed from within, the Roman Empire did the same, allowing, at one point, parents to leave a child to die on the side of the road through exposure to the elements if for any reason they did not wish to keep the child, and it was under two years of age.  During that time, Christians were arrested and beaten for trying to save these children left to die.

CBS News reports:
Governor Cuomo celebrated the passing of the bill in the Democrat-led Senate and Assembly on Tuesday, which happened to be the 46th anniversary of the Roe decision. "In the face of a federal government intent on rolling back Roe v. Wade and women's reproductive rights, I promised that we would enact this critical legislation within the first 30 days of the new session — and we got it done," Cuomo said in a statement. He directed state landmarks like the spire of One World Trade Center to be lit up in pink to "shine a bright light forward for the rest of the nation to follow." 
"We're saying here in New York, women's lives matter. We're saying here in New York, women's decisions matter," Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said.
Sarah Weddington, the Texas attorney who successfully argued Roe before Supreme Court, was at Cuomo's side when he signed the Reproductive Health Act into law. 
"Thank you for what you've done for women," Weddington told the governor, lawmakers and advocates.
The women surrounding Governor Cuomo cheered as he signed the law permitting women to kill their own children at any time while the child is still in the womb.

They cheered, for God sake.

The pro-abortion crowd, at this point, is claiming I am overreacting.

That same pro-abortion crowd claimed pro-life advocates were overreacting when we said that eventually they would want to make aborting a viable child who can survive outside the womb legal.

The way the laws are written, abortion is only allowed after 24 weeks if it is “necessary to protect the patient's life or health."

Are we talking about physical health, or mental and emotional health?  There's an awful long list of potential excuses in that general language.

Kermit Gosnell proved we can't trust the abortion doctors to even make a reasonable decision on what protecting the patient's health really means.

The "necessary to protect the patient's life or health" verbiage are only words on paper.  The reality is, the abortion doctors are there to kill babies, and this law simply says that if they can come up with some excuse that makes it sound like the woman's life is in danger, they can kill babies all the way up to the moments approaching birth.

The pro-abortion crowd will throw at us heartbreaking stories that make it difficult to deny such a situation, such as a mother with cancer who must abort in order to receive radiation treatment that would have killed the baby, anyway.

But, those rare instances are not what this is all about.  It is about the Party of Death extending into their realm of child sacrifice the allowance of women to kill their own children whenever they damn please.

Let's understand the New York law that Cuomo just signed clearly.  It allows abortion past viability when the baby can live on its own without the mother.  The "if the mother's life is at risk" part is just a few words to ward off accusations of how sick this law really is.

If a woman late in her pregnancy finds herself in some sort of danger, why would aborting a healthy, mostly formed baby be the only option?  If the baby no longer needs the mother's body to survive, why would anyone consider terminating that child's life?

Why not simply save the mother's life and deliver the child?

Dr. Omar L. Hamada, an OBGYN, tweeted, “I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt. I'm a Board Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies.  There's not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no."

So, when we say that a late-term abortion is permissible so long as it is “necessary to protect the patient's life or health," it's really all a lie.  There is no reason to terminate a pregnancy of a viable child.

On top of all that, the New York law also removes protections in the criminal code for unborn babies who are killed due to the conduct of another person.  In other words, murdering a pregnant woman will no longer be considered a double-homicide.

What comes to mind during this time of disgusting debauchery in America is Moloch, a false god of the Canaanites who required child sacrifice.  The sacrifices were performed in the name of autonomy and choice.

To me, it sounds like Moloch has set up shop in New York State, and the Democrat Party.  The next move will be to kill children after they are born, and then to legally kill people who disagree with their madness.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Pelosi, Trump, and the State of the Union

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Can Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, constitutionally deny President Trump from giving his State of the Union speech in the House of Representatives?

That is the most common question I've been getting of late.

The short answer is, "Yes."

In Article II the President is required to present a State of the Union speech to Congress.  The word "shall" is quite definitive.  However, it does not state "where" he may give his speech.

Traditionally, the Capitol where the House of Representatives meets, has been the stage for the State of the Union, and this is arranged by invitation by the Speaker to the President.

This time, due to the government shutdown and the border wall issue, Speaker Pelosi, like a zombie that has been resurrected to grab the gavel, has refused to extend the invitation.

So, that means the President must find a different venue.

The Senate may be too small.

I say, hold a giant rally at a stadium with Trump supporters and the members of the two Houses of Congress willing to show up, and make it a major event.

All of my life I have had to hear the Democrats scream how the Republican Party is the Party of "No," that the GOP is filled with obstructionists, and that whenever the party of the mighty elephant holds the reins of government they are a "do-nothing" Congress and an authoritarian President who has no regard for the United States Constitution.  Then, whenever the Democrats are in a place of power, they prove to us that all of their allegations against their opposition is projection.  The true obstructionists, the true party of "no", and the true party of authoritarian anti-constitutionalism is the Party of the Democrats.

Talk about whoever smell't it dealt it.

In the 2018 mid-term elections the Party of the Jackass, in a stunning performance the Republican faithful did not even see coming, took back the House of Representatives and reinstalled Nancy Pelosi as their Speaker of the House.

The Democrats have always been radical, but now they are as radical as ever, and Pelosi has been encouraged by the leftist's maniacal fervor.

Meanwhile, in addition to the rabid hate the Democrats have for President Trump (mainly because he's the first Republican since Ronald Reagan that they've been unable to control) the battle over funding for a border wall has raged to the point of a government shutdown.

Using the government shutdown as an excuse, petulant Pelosi has, as I stated earlier, denied President Trump from having the opportunity to deliver a State of the Union speech at the House.

Don't worry, I have a feeling the President has an even better idea than my stadium rally idea.

Once again, the Democrats will be revealing how petulant and obstructive they truly are.

I just hope the American People are paying attention.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Temecula Constitution Class ... Amendments 11 and 12


GOP HQ
28120 Jefferson Ave.
Temecula, CA  92563
Wednesdays, 6:00 pm


Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com


Lesson 17

Amendments 11 and 12

Further Limiting the Courts, Amendment 11
The Judicial Branch was added almost as an afterthought. The judiciary was originally designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The Anti-Federalists feared the judicial branch becoming a judicial oligarchy, and therefore the judicial branch was constructed to only apply the law to cases they hear.  All opinions the judges may have of the law after reviewing the law was considered to be only opinion.  Any changes to law, regardless of what the courts felt about the law, could only be made legislatively.  However, soon after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, fears of a tyrannical court arose, and so additional limits were placed on the federal courts by the 11th Amendment.  No case against a State by citizens of another State, or by the citizens or subjects of a foreign state, shall be heard by a federal court.

The 11th Amendment changes the intent of Article III.  As limited as the courts were supposed to be, the Founding Fathers realized the courts weren't limited enough, and as a result, the 11th Amendment wound up being ratified in 1795.

Federal judges maintained that the federal courts should have the power of judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of laws.  In response to the judicial urgings for the powers to judge the extent of the federal government's powers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that giving the federal government through its courts the power of judicial review would be a power that would continue to grow, regardless of elections, putting at risk the all important separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on power. The final arbiters of the Constitution are not supposed to be the courts, argued these Founding Fathers who were believers in the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution.  The power of the federal government must be checked by State governments, and the people.  The States and the People are the enforcers and protectors of the U.S. Constitution.

As you may recall, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, resigned his position in 1795, disappointed in how few powers the federal courts had.  When approached later by President John Adams to return to the United States Supreme Court as the high court’s Chief Justice, Jay turned Adams down.  He said the Court lacked "the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government."  He also did not wish to serve under Thomas Jefferson, the victor in the 1800 Presidential Election, who was an advocate of limited government, and a judicial branch that existed as the weakest of the three branches of government. 

While John Jay was Chief Justice, among the influences of his decision that the court was too weak to promote a strong, centralized national government, was the case of Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793, which eventually led to the proposal, and ratification, of the 11th Amendment.  A citizen of South Carolina sued Georgia for the value of clothing supplied by a merchant during the Revolutionary War.  After Georgia refused to appear, claiming immunity as a sovereign state, as per the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) the federal courts took the case.  The nationalist view by the justices deemed that in this case Georgia was not a sovereign State; therefore, the Supreme Court entered a default judgment against Georgia.  What ensued was a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty that reminded the anti-federalists of their fears of a centralized federal government consolidating the States, and destroying their right to individual sovereignty.

Realizing that the clause in Article III gave the federal courts too much power over State Sovereignty, Congress immediately proposed the 11th Amendment in order to take away federal court jurisdiction in suits commenced against a State by citizens of another State, or of a foreign state.  This is the first instance in which a Supreme Court decision was superseded by a constitutional amendment, and evidence that the Founders saw the legislative branch and the States as being more powerful parts of government than the judiciary.
Terms:
Constitutional Amendment - Changes made to an existing constitution.

Judicial Branch - The branch of the United States Government responsible for the administration of justice; a central judiciary that is limited to federal authorities, and separated from the will of the central leadership.

Judicial Review - The unconstitutional authority of the federal courts to review law, interpret the Constitution regarding laws, and then determine the constitutionality of laws.

National Government - Any political organization that is put in place to maintain control of a nation; a strong central government that does not recognize the individualism or local authorities of the smaller parts, such as states, of the nation.

Separation of Powers - A division of governmental authority into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial; division of powers between the States and federal government.


Questions for Discussion:

1.  Why did the Founding Fathers design our governmental system with the Judicial Branch being the weakest of the three branches of government?

2.  Why is judicial review only supposed to be an opinion?

3.  How did Chisholm v. Georgia change the authorities granted to the federal judiciary?

4.  How does the 11th Amendment protect State Sovereignty?

Resources

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793), Cornell College - Politics:
http://cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/365-366/documents/chisholm_v_georgia.html
Jefferson’s Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798, Avalon
Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.asp
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution –
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
Virginia Resolution of 1798, Constitution.org:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm



Electoral Procedures for Electing President Changed, Amendment 12

 “Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

The 12th Amendment changes the procedure for electing the President and Vice President originally provided for in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.  The procedure has remained the same since its ratification, save for the States changing their procedures from appointing the electors by the choice of the State legislatures, thus following the instructions of the State legislatures, to the citizens voting for who the electors are expected to vote for.  Though the electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, in practice they usually vote for the candidates chosen by the voters in their State.  1824 is the last election in which electors were primarily appointed by their State legislature.  In that election, six states followed that procedure.  South Carolina was the final State to follow the practice, ceasing the appointment of their electors by the State legislature upon the approach of the American Civil War.

Each State is constitutionally allowed to choose how to appoint or elect their electors, and the methods vary from State to State.  Generally, electors are nominated by their State political parties in the months prior to Election Day.  In some States, the electors are nominated in primaries, the same way that other candidates are nominated.  Other States nominate their electors in party conventions.

The need for the 12th Amendment became apparent after the problems that arose in the elections of 1796 and 1800.  The Twelfth Amendment was proposed by the Congress on December 9, 1803, and was ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures on June 15, 1804.

Before the 12th Amendment, electors could vote for two candidates, though at least one had to be from a State different from that of the elector (as a protection against a larger State dominating the federal government).  A majority of the vote needed to be received in order to win the presidency.  If no candidate received a majority vote, then the House of Representatives chose the President.

In 1800, after a tie in the Electoral College, the House tied 36 times. That particular election was marked by a battle between the Federalists, and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans.  Even though Burr was Jefferson’s running mate, Aaron Burr wound up Jefferson’s adversary when the vote went to the House.  The lame-duck House controlled by the Federalists threw their support behind Burr, because they did not trust Jefferson’s philosophy of a limited government.

The term Electoral College did not appear until the early 1800s, and did not appear in legislation until 1845.  The concept was designed to act in a manner similar to Congress, where a portion of the election was connected to the population-based premise that was also used by the House of Representatives, and another portion of the Electoral College would be based on the State appointment premise used by the U.S. Senate.

In Federalist No. 39, James Madison explained that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of State-based and population-based government.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system.  His definition of “faction” in relation to elections was "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."  In a republic it was necessary, according to Madison, to vary the distribution of powers, including those powers held by the members of the populace.  Only a thorough division of power throughout the American System would protect the United States from the excesses of democracy, and countervail against factions.  Madison further explained that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.

Prior to the 12th Amendment, the choice of the Vice President went to the second place winner of the presidential election.  The Vice President, unlike the President, did not require the votes of a majority of electors.  If a tie arose, the Vice President was chosen by the Senate, with each Senator casting one vote.  Though it was not specified in the Constitution whether the sitting Vice President could cast a tie-breaking vote for Vice President, because the sitting Vice President is President of the Senate and casts the tie-breaking vote, it is assumed that if that situation had arisen, the sitting Vice President would indeed be the deciding vote for his successor.  Because the second place winner became Vice President, it was very possible for the President and the Vice President to be from different parties.  In fact, that is what happened in the 1796 election.  John Adams won that election as the Federalist Party candidate, and Jefferson became the Vice President as a Democratic-Republican candidate.  The fear was that by the two men being of different parties, the Vice President may do what he could to impede the ability of the President, or could even launch an effort to remove the President from office so that the Vice President could succeed to the office of the President.

The 12th Amendment eliminated the possibility of problems arising between the President and Vice President due to them being from different parties by having the President and Vice President elected as a ticket, thus lessening the Vice President's motivation for staging a coup.

The 12th Amendment also eliminated the “two votes for presidential candidates” method, changing it instead to the electors casting distinct votes for President and Vice President.

The 12th Amendment indicates that no elector may vote for both candidates of a presidential ticket if both candidates inhabit the same State as that elector, a provision consistent with the Framer’s original language against collusion.

The 12th Amendment also clarified language to not allow those constitutionally ineligible to be President from being Vice President.

A majority of Electoral Votes is still required for one to be elected President or Vice President.  As in the case before the 12th Amendment, when nobody has a majority, the House of Representatives, voting by States and with the same quorum requirements as under the original procedure, chooses a President.  The 12th Amendment requires the House of Representatives to choose from the three highest receivers of Electoral Votes, rather than the top five as was the process under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.

The Senate chooses the Vice President if no candidate receives a majority of Electoral Votes. The 12th Amendment requires a quorum of two-thirds for balloting.

Terms:

Collusion - Conspire together.

Electoral College - A body of electors chosen by the voters in each State to elect the President and Vice President of the United States.

Limited Government - A government that acts within the limitations granted to it; a governmental system that is restrained by an enumerated list of authorities; a limited government is the essence of liberty.

Quorum - Minimum number of members of an assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group.

Sectionalism - Loyalty to the interests of one's own region or section of the country, rather than to the country as a whole; loyalty to a political agenda or ideology rather than to the country as a whole.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  Why did the States originally appoint electors, rather than the electors being elected directly by the popular vote by the public?

2.  What lessons did the Election of 1800 provide?

3.  Now that the presidential election is determined by party tickets, which ensures

Resources

David McCollough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster.
(2002)
Edward J. Larson, A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election
of 1800; New York: Free Press (2007)
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder’s Constitution –
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).


Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Trump's Government Shutdown Explained

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The image spells it all out . . .



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Corona Constitution Class: Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Tuesday Night 6:00 pm at AllStar/CARSTAR Collision
522 Railroad St., Corona, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
 
 
 
Lesson 14
 
Militias and Standing Armies
 
2nd Amendment: Keep and Bear Arms
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights is your responsibility. Like anything else you own, if you give away your rights, or allow someone to take them, they may still belong to you as an unalienable, God-given right, but you have given up all access to them, and can no longer exercise those rights.
 
In the Washington, D.C. v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.
 
During the early years of the United States under the United States Constitution, the Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people's rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
 
The States have Original Authority, meaning that all powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles of the document did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 2nd Amendment simply confirms that. The argument then becomes about the potential tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?
The State constitutions, and the people, hold the responsibility of restraining the States from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were not concerned with a tyranny of the States because the State governments are closer to the people, and therefore the people have fewer legal and political obstacles when acting to ensure the State governments do not infringe on individual rights.
 
Complacency, then, becomes our greatest enemy.
 
With freedom comes responsibility.
 
Understanding that the Framers expected their posterity to be informed problem-solvers, while recognizing that basic human nature would invite complacency and the rise of a tyrannical government, it becomes clear why the Founding Fathers put so much importance on gun rights.
 
In early American society the need to be armed was necessary for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, protecting one's property, facilitating a natural right of self-defense, participating in law enforcement, enabling people to participate in an organized militia system, deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and hunting.
 
The right to keep and bear arms is not merely about protecting your home, or hunting, though those are important, too. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which could include a potentially oppressive central government.
 
Noah Webster in his "An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," in 1787 articulated the necessity for keeping and bearing arms clearly: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 pretence, raised in the United States."
 
Some will argue the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past.
 
The National Guard now serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an unorganized militia also exists.
 
Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both "organized" and "unorganized" civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.
 
United States Code: Title 10 - Armed Forces, Subtitle A - General Military Law
Chapter 13 - The Militia:
 
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
 
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
 
(b) The classes of the militia are -
 
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 
Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist. The Founding Fathers would have likely included in the definition of unorganized militia, "All able-bodied citizens capable of fighting."
 
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) challenged the City of Chicago's ban on hand guns, bringing to the surface the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government.
 
The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.
 
The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void. Applying the 2nd Amendment to the States means the 2nd Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms, and according to the 2nd Amendment, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If "shall not be infringed" applies to both the federal government and the States governments, then all persons are allowed to possess a firearm. The words, "shall not be infringed" carries no exceptions.
 
The reason the 2nd Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government. The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.
 
The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government except where specifically noted otherwise.
 
In reference to McDonald v. Chicago, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or state what they have to do, even if on the surface it is for a good cause.
 
If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later? This case created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and that kind of federal intrusion constitutes great danger to State Sovereignty.
 
Breaking down the language used in the 2nd Amendment assists in clarifying what the original intent was.
 
The 2nd Amendment begins, "A well regulated Militia." The immediate understanding of that phrase by the average American in today's culture recognizes it as meaning, "A militia under the control of the government," or "regulated by government agencies," or "managed by federal law."
 
All of the above definitions are wrong.
 
As discussed regarding the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, the word "regulated" does not mean "controlled or restricted by government." The definition used by the Framers, and the one that fits best with the context of the period, and the principles of the Constitution, can be found in the 1828 Webster Dictionary. Webster defined regulated as: "To put in good order." Some historians state that the word "regulate" in the 18th Century meant "To make regular." The word "restrict" was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of "regulated," revealing that today's most common definition was the "least used" definition during the time of the writing of the United States Constitution.
 
Since "regulate" did not mean "to control and restrict," but instead meant "to put in good order," that means a well regulated militia is one that is in good order.
 
The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn't even have shoes.
 
To put the militia in good order, Congress was required to create standards for the militia to follow. The authority to Congress regarding this power is revealed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where the Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power. . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
 
The next part of the 2nd Amendment reveals that a well regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free State."
 
The word State, in that instance, means "individual, autonomous, sovereign State." In other words, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free Massachusetts, a free Pennsylvania, a free Virginia, a free New York, a free Ohio, a free California, and so on.
 
"Necessary to the security of a free State." A militia is necessary, not just recommended, to the security of a free State. Security against whom? A foreign invader? Isn't that what the standing army was supposed to be for? Why would States need militias, capable of being called up by the governor of the State, for their "security," and to ensure that security is for them to remain a "free State?"
 
Foreign enemies were a concern, but not as much of a concern as a tyrannical central government. Thomas Jefferson so distrusted a central government that he suggested there would be a bloody revolution every twenty years.
 
"... can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787
 
The Declaration of Independence also states that the people have the right to stand up against their government should it become tyrannical. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it reads:
 
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
 
The right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government walks hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms. How could it ever be logical that the right to keep and bear arms could ever be influenced or restricted by the very government that that right exists to protect the people against in the first place?
 
Terms:
Arms - Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.
 
Collective Right - Rights held by a group, rather than its members separately.
 
Declaration of Independence - The unanimous formal Declaration of the thirteen united States of America declaring their freedom from Great Britain, dated July 4, 1776.
 
Individual Right - Rights held by individuals within a particular group.
 
Organized Militia - A well trained militia that is in good order that operates under the authority of Congress, able to be called into actual service by the executive authority of a State, or by the Congress of the United States; National Guard, Naval Militia, State Militias.
 
Original Authority - Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.
 
Regulated - To make regular; to put in good order.
 
State Sovereignty - The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.
 
Unorganized Militia - Able-bodied citizens of the United States, or those who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States, who are members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 
 
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. In your opinion, what are the most important reasons for the right to bear arms?
 
2. If the courts, or the federal government, were to redefine gun rights as being a collective right, how would that affect our individual right to keep and bear arms?
 
3. Is a militia necessary in today's society? Why?
 
4. Why did the Founding Fathers see it as necessary to prohibit the federal government from any authority to prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, but felt it necessary to allow the States full authority over gun regulations?
 
5. In McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to cities and States. How does that open up the opportunity for the federal government to further regulate firearms?
 
 
Resources:
 
10 USC § 311 - Militia: Composition and Classes, Cornell University
Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
 
McDonald v. City of Chicago, United States Supreme Court:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
 
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal
Constitution (Philadelphia 1787), The Federalist Papers: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/noah-webster/noah-webster-an-examination-of-the-leading-principles-of-the-federal-constitution-philadelphia-1787
 
The Tree of Liberty Quotation, Monticello - TH: Jefferson Encyclopedia:
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...(Quotation)
 
Washington, D.C. v. Heller, Supreme Court of the United States Blog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3rd Amendment: Quartering
 
The Founding Fathers feared a centralized government with a powerful military. One of the final straws that began the road to the American Revolution was the Quartering Act of 1765 where the colonists became required to house and feed the British troops they despised. The Quartering Act enabled the British Empire to exercise greater control over the populace. It was also known as one of the Intolerable Acts.
 
The Quartering Act served as a major reason for the writing of the 3rd Amendment, which reads: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
 
Tyrannical governmental systems use unwarranted influence through military means. To guard against the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power, the Framer's concerns about standing armies became evident in the 3rd Amendment.
 
To help the populace protect themselves, and be able to enforce the 3rd Amendment, in case the federal government violated the clause, the Founding Fathers also gave us the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
The concept of a Militia that is not a federal army is the realization that the United States will not be one where there is a standing army that can be used against its citizens. Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 gives the Congress the power to raise and support armies, but limits them to no more than two years funding.
 
When a military arm of a tyrannical government can compel the citizenry to house the military machinery of defense, a police state is present and liberty is at risk. Such was the reasoning behind the 3rd Amendment.
 
Until the Revolutionary War, the American States had no military, and the militias were populated by the colonists. The Constitution gave the U.S. Government the authority to build a military for the defense of the union. A military establishment, in the minds of the Founders, was a potentially dangerous thing. The Founding Fathers desired to protect the union, but did not desire that the American military become an authoritarian tool of a potentially tyrannical federal government.
 
Terms:
Intolerable Acts - A series of laws passed by the British Parliament against the American Colonies in March of 1774. The British Parliament referred to these laws as the Coercive Acts. The acts were primarily designed to punish the colony of Massachusetts for defying British policies, and more specifically, for the Boston Tea Party. The Intolerable Acts caused outrage among the Americans, which led to the calling of the First Continental Congress in September of 1774. Among the actions taken by this united Congress was a boycott of British goods. The Intolerable Acts were called "impolitic, unjust, and cruel," and included the Boston Port Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Quartering Act, the Quebec Act, and the Administration of Justice Act.
 
Police State - A system where the government exercises rigid and repressive controls through strong law enforcement or military control.
 
Quartering Act of 1765 - Act passed by the British Parliament in 1765 that stated that British troops in America would be housed in barracks and in public houses unless and until the number of troops overwhelmed the facilities, at which time, the troops could be housed in private commercial property, such as inns and stable, and in uninhabited homes and barns. The quartering would be without compensation and, in fact, owners would be required to provide soldiers with certain necessities such as food, liquor, salt, and bedding, also without compensation.
 
Standing Army - A professional permanent army composed of full-time career soldiers who are not disbanded during times of peace.
 
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why did the British pass the Quartering Act of 1765?
 
2. How did the Americans respond to the Intolerable Acts?
 
3. Why did the Founding Fathers have concerns regarding standing armies?
 
4. How does militias protect against the formation of a police state?
 
 
Resources:
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
 
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
 
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
 
Quartering Act, U.S. Constitution Online:
http://www.usconstitution.net/quarteringact.html
 
The Declaration of Rights and Grievances, U.S. Constitution Online:
http://www.usconstitution.net/intol.html
 
 
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs