Scalia’s establishment take on ‘gun control’ should be no surprise to gun owners
-
-
By David Codrea * July 29, 2012
Read at Source:
Teaser from article:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told “Fox News Sunday” that “the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons,” The National Journal reported this morning, and that has created quite a media stir.
While treated as a breaking revelation to the point of garnering the headline position on The Drudge Report at this writing, in big red letters, no less, Scalia’s position is hardly news to those who pay attention to such things. The 2008 opinion he wrote for the majority in the landmark District of Columbia v Heller case made that clear, causing no small amount of consternation among gun rights advocates.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia asserted. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Click < here > for story.
-
Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!
SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath
SUPPORT OUR NASCAR CAMPAIGN
SUPPORT OUR LIBERTY TOUR
Free music concerts for the troops, with direct outreach to them about their oath
July 30th, 2012 at 6:44 am
Federalist papers 46
- Begin excerpt -
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.
- End excerpt
July 30th, 2012 at 9:49 am
Valerie Jarrett Obama’s closest aide is Shirazi!
http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/valerie-jarrett
July 30th, 2012 at 10:49 am
Not only is Scalia lying, but that also makes him a TRAITOR to the USA.
The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 JUNE 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an ACT TO REGULATE THE TIME AND MANNER of ADMINISTERING CERTAIN OATHS, which established the oath REQUIRED by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.
The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The REQUIREMENT for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.
They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure; and is also a civil offense because the Oath is solemn and binding.
{Solemn: “LEGALLY BINDING, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
Bound – “Being under LEGAL or moral obligation”}
Also they NO LONGER meet the requirement of the office or position that they currently occupy. To meet those requirements they had to take a legally binding Oath and keep it. No Oath under our LEGITIMATE government – no position, at least not legally.
The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take a SOLEMN Oath to support and defend the Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge. All presidents take a solemn and binding Oath to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the US Constitution”. Notice that the only time limit on the Oath is death or renouncement – but renouncing it makes them not meet the requirements of the position or office.
If you notice that it has been this way since June 1, 1789. Just because we (okay, our ancestors) allowed those who went against the Constitution of the United States of America and created anything that weakened it, or went against it then – that action is STILL NOT legal today. Like Murder – If I killed a guy on July 1, 1789 and was still alive today – I could still be tried for Murder. There is NO TIME LIMIT on those actions being illegal and Null and VOID.
Anything that weakened or went against the US Constitution or its blueprint for the way our federal government operates is “Null and Void”, illegal and not LEGALLY enforceable. That is not saying, like what happened in Germany, that ILLEGAL enforcement by law enforcement or military is not possible – we know that it is because the people in those positions do not understand the US Constitution or our laws; they do not always even remember their required solemn and legally binding Oath. Those actions do NOT make what they are doing lawful, it only makes them criminals.
We have to start arrests and prosecutions within each state of our ‘representatives’ who have not upheld their Oaths, and some a lot worse then that. If we do this state by state, along with the Nullification we have a chance to: educate people as to what OUR legitimate government stands for and is. Plus stop this before more people get murdered and/or imprisoned illegally. Representatives, Judges, Law Enforcement, etc – ALL who are not KEEPING the Oath as is REQUIRED by the position they occupy MUST be arrested, and held for prosecution. All who take the Oath, from mailmen, to file clerks, to the Governor of the state you are in – ALL. Start at the top, then more at lower levels will start coming forward and speaking up.
If we wait much longer .. well, already we have foreign troops “training” on American soil. We have mercenary soldiers (which costs more) here in the USA. We have an armed TSA, DHS (who put out Nazi propaganda materials HERE – “See something, say something” – very NAZI of them), etc. Armed IRS, Armed Dept of Agriculture, etc.
WE have the UN Agenda 21 which takes away OUR right to own property and a President, a Defense Secretary, and a Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General who all said that a foreign entity now has authority over the USA and over our military; that THEIR “authority” comes FROM the UN and NATO and NOT the US Constitution – which IS TREASON at the highest levels of our federal government. No where under our LEGITIMATE government does anyone in either of the three branches or as heads of states have that power.
So tell me ‘Constitutional’ lawyers, why is no one pursuing that? Why is no one pursuing that OUR legitimate government is being attacked from the inside which is TREASON, makes all of those who assist, support, and do NOT defend our nation TRAITORS and Domestic Enemies of the USA?
Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that ALL resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”
That makes Agenda 21 “NULL and VOID”, it makes anything that stinks of UN “authority” NOT LEGAL here, and anyone they bring here to enforce it is a PHYSICAL attack by a foreign entity and/or nations on the USA.
But why wait for more law breaking and for an outside physical attack on our shores when we can start arrests of them now? Why?
July 30th, 2012 at 10:58 am
Oops, sorry, this was left out.
Article 43 Paragraph 3 of Charter of the United Nations was included specifically to allay concerns that prevented the United States of America from ratifying the League of Nations Treaty in 1919.
That treaty risked crowning the President with the counter-constitutional authority to initiate warfare. On November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, to preserve the balance of power established by the United States Constitution from executive usurpation, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows: The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations – whether members of the League or not – under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.
The rejection of Lodge’s reservations by President Woodrow Wilson and his Senate allies insured defeat of the treaty.
Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
37. In United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (1806), Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court: There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.
In Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated: Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.
All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held:
There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.
. In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:
No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “[t]o raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King… (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya:
Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?
Secretary Gates: Probably so.
Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation – is that also true?
Secretary Gates: You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.
Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war or not. If it’s an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another nation?
Secretary Gates: Presumably.
September 16th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a traitor and should be tried and exicuted period!!!