One can logically assume that the same line of reasoning would apply against the feds, CORRECT? At least Mr. Alexander Hamilton certainly seemed to think so:
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource 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 usurpation of the national rulers, may be exerted with an inﬁnitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted 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 defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28, New York Packet. Tuesday, December 25, 1787.Believe that the words paramount to all positive forms of government most assuredly indicates that to be the case. WHY then was the treasonous federal government permitted by the courts to pass laws they were Constitutionally FORBIDDEN from enacting? Care to explain that, your honors? For the whole intended purpose of the Restrictive clause of Amendment II was to prevent all positive forms of government from disarming those that had committed one of the most highest forms of felonious crimes: TREASON. As had been done in the SAME EXACT STATE INVOLVED IN THE CASE ABOVE just prior to the Constitutional Convention. And was the direct cause for the DEMAND that Amendment II was called for to begin with.
Is it not your Constitutionally charged DUTY, your honors, to:
“It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
“Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is SUPERIOR to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.And let's see now, what does the RESTRICTIVE clause of Amendment II say on the matter? --
RESTRICTIVE clause; [Self-Defense]
And other parts of our Constitution read:“the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed.”
Article IVSection 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Article VThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Why not return to the TRUTH as it was given by a couple of YOUR brethren from YOUR court in the 19th century? (Which was utterly disregarded by the federal government and the States by the great acts of TREASON in the 20th century.) --Article VIThis Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
US v Cruikshank, Fifth Circuit Court of the U.S., , Judge [and soon to be Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court] Woods’ Jury Charge: “This statute is the law of the land . . . Its purpose is the protection of all citizens of the United States of every class and condition, in the exercise and enjoyment of their lawful and constitutional rights. . . . Its prohibitions are directed to all persons; its penalties fall upon all offenders against its provisions of every race, condition and party. . . . and it protects alike the rights of all. It applies to all parts of our country, and its provisions extend to every State and Territory in the Union . . . The second count charges a banding together of the indicted parties with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate . . . with the purpose to hinder and prevent them in the free exercise and enjoyment of their constitutional right to bear arms . . . To band is defined to be “to associate, to unite.” Thus we read in the acts of the Apostles….”, March 14, 1874
“Judge Bradley decides, in effect, that the laws and Constitution of the United States, do not protect individual citizens against aggressions and violations by individuals, of the right peaceably to assemble or the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to vote . . . The Constitution of the United States and fourteenth and fifteen amendments forbid the Federal Government and the State Government to violate these great rights…”, June 30, 1874
New Orleans Republican, Re: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite in U.S. v. Cruikshank et al, “The right of bearing arms for lawful purposes must be seen to by States, the constitution simply providing that Congress shall not infringe it; the sovereignty to protect lives and property lies exclusively in the States. The fourteenth amendment prohibits States from depriving any person of certain rights . . . The only obligation of the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right.”, March 27, 1876
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Bradley, “The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter? . . . Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from interfering with the right . . . Power to enforce the amendment is all that is given to congress. If the amendment is not violated, it has no power over the subject. . . . . in their right to bear arms…”, AFFIRMED, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).
Get this treason committed by our hired servants RECTIFIED, your honors.