Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Why does the United States Supreme Court dismiss THIS authorative commentary?

"And herein consists one of the great excellencies of our constitution: that no individual can be oppressed whilst this branch of the government remains independent, and uncorrupted; it being a necessary check upon the encroachments, or usurpations of power, by either of the other. Thus, if the legislature should pass a law dangerous to the liberties of the people, the judiciary are bound to pronounce, not only whether the party accused hath been guilty of any violation of it, but whether such a law be permitted by the constitution. If, for example, a law be passed by congress, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates, or persuasions of a man’s own conscience; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peaceably, or to keep and bear arms; it would, in any of these cases, be the province of the judiciary to pronounce whether any such act were constitutional, or not; and if not, to acquit the accused from any penalty which might be annexed to the breach of such unconstitutional act. If an individual be persecuted by the executive authority, (as in any alien, the subject of a nation with whom the United States were at that time at peace, had been imprisoned by order of the president under the authority of the alien act, 5 Cong. c. 75) it is then the province of the judiciary to decide whether there be any law that authorizes the proceedings against him, and if there be none, to acquit him, not only of the present, but of all future prosecutions for the same cause: or if there be, then to examine its validity under the constitution, as before-mentioned. The power of pardon, which is vested in the executive, in its turn, constitutes a proper check upon the too great rigor, or abuse of power in the judiciary department. On this circumstance, however, no great stress ought to be laid; since in criminal prosecutions, the executive is in the eye of the law, always plaintiff; and where the prosecution is carried on by its direction, the purity of the judiciary is the only security for the rights of the citizen. The judiciary, therefore, is that department of the government to whom the protection of the rights of the individual is by the constitution especially confided, interposing its shield between him and the sword of usurped authority, the darts of oppression, and the shafts of faction and violence. Let us see in what manner this protection, is thus confided to the judiciary department by the constitution...."

“...In England, on the contrary, the greatest political object may be attained, by laws, apparently of little importance, or amounting only to a slight domestic regulation: the game-laws, as was before observed, have been converted into the means of disarming the body of the people: the statute de donis conditionalibus has been the rock, on which the existence and influence of a most powerful aristocracy, has been founded, and erected: the acts directing the mode of petitioning parliament, &c. and those for prohibiting riots: and for suppressing assemblies of free-masons, &c. are so many ways for preventing public meetings of the people to deliberate upon their public, or national concerns. The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion.”--St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings [1803].

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."

"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

"...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..."--St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries,(1803). (Mr. Tucker was a Lawyer and Professor of law at the College of William and Mary. He was appointed one of the committee to revise the laws of Virginia, and he served with James Madison and Edmund Randolph as Virginia commissioners to the Annapolis Convention. In 1803 Tucker became a judge of the highest court in Virginia. In 1813 he was appointed by President James Madison to be the United States district judge for Virginia. Tucker also, as District Court judge, sat with Chief Justice John Marshall on the U.S. Circuit Court in Richmond.).  

Mr. Tucker was AT the debates concerning the Bill of Rights. To Wit:
"Mr. Tucker hoped the words would not struck out, for he considered them of importance; besides, they were recommended by the States of Virginia and North Carolina, he noticed that the most material part by those States was omitted, which was, a declaration that the people should have a right instruct their representatives. He would move to have those words inserted as soon as the motion for striking out was decided."--[U.S. House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, August 15, 1789. [THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES; WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND ALL THE LAWS OF A PUBLIC NATURE; WITH A COPIOUS INDEX. VOLUME I. COMPRISING (WITH VOLUME II) THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 3, 1789, TO MARCH 3, 1791, INCLUSIVE. COMPILED FROM AUTHENTIC MATERIALS, BY JOSEPH GALES, Senior. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON. 1834. Pg. 760].
   In fact, the United States Supreme Court used to quote Mr. Tucker's writings in their early cases. As well as being quoted by one of the more famous Justices of the court; Mr. Justice Joseph Story. Which was in his own authoritative work; Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Why does the court arbitrarily dismiss Mr. Tucker's obviously historically and legally sound opinions? Why has the court upheld the tyrannical usurpations of the federal government? The very government that was EXPRESSLY DENIED the authority to 'regulate' arms in the hands of We The People? What did Mr. Tucker mean by the following?
"the purity of the judiciary is the only security for the rights of the citizen"
   Wouldn't that suggest that perhaps the court isn't so "pure"? More like, it suggests that the court has VIOLATED the trust We The People have confided in it. And has combined with the legislative and executive branches in the ongoing conspiracy. ALL of the following supposed 'laws' are clearly unconstitutional and therefore NULL and VOID:
1934 National Firearms Act

1938 Federal Firearms Act

1968 Gun Control Act

1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created

1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

1990 Crime Control Act

1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
   Or, is the United States Supreme Court going to continue to miserably fail in its Constitutionally charged duty, and uphold tyrannical usurpations? WHY would the court rule the following in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875):
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."
   And then turn around and allow all of the aforementioned unconstitutional 'laws' to remain in force? Are their memories failing? Or, do they just arbitrarily change the rules as they go along? If so, then We The People's Constitution is MEANINGLESS. And we are being arbitrarily ruled by tyrannical usurpers combined in a very long running conspiracy. This needs to STOP IMMEDIATELY.

No comments: