Tuesday, July 05, 2016

Those whining for 'expanded background checks' had damn well better beware....

   Do you cowards have any idea what you are advocating? Let me put it to you this way. Suppose that our perverse government were to demand that a 'background check' must be performed before you could speak or write? Would not you liberals/democrats scream to high heaven if such a demand were made?

   Yet you have no problem that the very same perversion not only has already been unconstitutionally enacted. But insist on demanding that it be expanded even further? Do you cowards want that same perversion applied to the rest of our rights as well? Because that is the very thing that you are inadvertently perversely calling out for. For if our corrupt government succeeds in demanding it for one right. Then it establishes the precedent for them to demand it for every other right. And soon the government is in full control of all of the rights that We The People had Constitutionally REMOVED from their 'authority' or 'power'.

   Mr. Hamilton expresses the idea quite well here:
   "To the second, that is, to the pretended establishment of the common and statute law by the constitution, I answer, that they are expressly made subject “to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same.” They are therefore at any moment liable to repeal by the ordinary legislative power, and of course have no constitutional sanction. The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law, and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the revolution. This consequently can be considered as no part of a declaration of rights, which under our constitutions must be intended as limitations of the power of the government itself.

   “It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. “We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.”

   “Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. “WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

   “But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

   “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”–Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No 84, Independent Journal, Wednesday, July 16, Saturday, July 26, Saturday, August 9, 1788.
    Is not that precisely what has happened with our rights? The traitors in 'power' have indeed made a "colorable pretext to claim more than were granted", have they not? Consider carefully what Mr, Hamilton meant when he stated; "Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

   The very same idea expressed as that conveyed above applies equally as well to the right of We The People to keep and bear arms. For there is no express Constitutional "authority" or "power" delegated over the preexisting individual right to keep and bear arms PERIOD. In fact, it was expressly Constitutionally withheld by the "Restrictive clause" in Amendment II: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

   Mr. Hamilton had also earlier stated in The Federalist:
    "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, June 14, 1788.
    Yet there have been numerous "legislative acts" which have directly violated the right to keep and bear arms. Can it not be rightfully held then, as according to what Mr. Hamilton had stated above, that those "acts" are NOT "valid"? I indeed will contend that that which Mr. Hamilton had stated is the true legal precedent. And that all such current, past and future 'laws' have ZERO validity. That they were not only not delegated any Constitutional 'authority' or 'power' to enact them in the first place. But in fact were expressly forbidden from doing any such thing. That in fact they are nothing more than NULL and VOID.

No comments: