Category Archives: Constitution

On Gun Control

I had a thought. (oh no) so here goes. Putting it all together I find it hard to think that the states could even do any amount of gun control. Be it magazine size, type of weapon,  or any such thing.

You see we have a few things that I would think prevent it.  We have the 10th amendment.

Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This says that if it is in the constitution the states cant play with it right? OK, so what is in the constitution. We find that the framers were so alarmed that the government would do something that is against the thoughts of the people that, that they needed to make sure no one screwed around with the one thing that we could use as a last resort to fix what is broken. what is that ? Well they said that you don’t mess with our guns. plain and simple. they thought so highly of this idea that they made it to be right after the right for free speech and religion. After all how can you protect those rights if you cant fight back right?

“Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms

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.”

Yes they mention a militia, but do you know what a militia is? It turns out it is you and me.  Even the laws of the USA specify that. under 10 USC it says that there are 2 different militias. That of the Guard and that of the people. it says that it is every man 17-45 that is not a felon.

“10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes

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.”
Ok so there is that. So how does a state get away with ANY gun law? According to the supreme court we should be able to just ignore these laws right, I mean they did decide that any law that goes against the constitution is invalid right?
“Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law.[1] The Court’s landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual “law”, not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government. “
So how do we get back to what the framers wanted? I guess we could go to the courts once again. the courts that were so liberal under previous administrations have exceeded their limits in my opinion.  They have allowed that which is not in the constitution and laws by allowing states to restrict certain things as long as they do not disallow the major things.(gun type, magazine size…. as long as they allow at least one type of gun.) All the while going against what the framers had in mind. That of the citizenry being able to fight the government using the same or better weapons that the government uses. you have to remember that the framers didn’t say guns were for hunting, they said it was to defend yourself , your state, and your country from the enemies of such. This is what we see starting to happen in Virginia right now, the people fighting back against a government gone wrong. They have said they were going to peaceably attempt this right now. We also see a corrupt government fight back with underhanded things. What I see of these 2A folks are folks that are upholding an oath that many of us have taken and have never been released from and the pledge we all took going back to grade school.
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
the basic oath we have all taken:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
And I will add in a link to Heller just because

another on mass shootings

I ask that you think about what I am about to badly write in this missive. I do not think I have all the answers. But in this time of high emotions I ask that you put your emotions aside and think.

I have watched over the last few years, and posted thoughts on my blog My thoughts at every turn and incident that has arisen. I am now doing the same.  I see every time that we have one of these mass shootings the politicians going the same route and using emotions to slowly take away our rights as citizens.  Yes over the weekend we had a tragedy.  No I will not go the way of the conspiracy people and say it was a false flag and that the info does not line up.  Rather I will attempt to look at the facts as I can see them.

Right now the left is calling for you to help them disarm America in baby steps. They are counting on your emotions being raw from all the coverage that you have seen. This happens every time. Let us go through some of the details.  The El Paso shooter acquired his gun unlawfully.  Where did he get it? Would any of the current legislation they are pushing have stopped him? I say no.  The left is calling for an assault weapons ban. Ok, can you tell me what is an assault weapon? is it a bat? As I previously posted the very reason we have weapons are 3 fold, to protect our family, to protect our state from external attack and to protect our state from internal attack.  Those are the reasons our founders enumerated this right in the 2nd. To be able to do so we must have weapons capable of this. Why did the Japanese not attack mainland USA? Because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

Now let us look at a more frightening thought. setting aside the abberations of the mass shootings, just how many shootings/dead happened over the weekend? I know of at least 6 in my area. how many in Camden? Trenton? Newark? Chicago? NY? name the area? What effect would the legislation have on these shootings? NONE! all or most of the shootings were gang related with unlawful weapons. 95% of the “mass” shootings are with unlawful weapons. How will a law fix that? As to the Ohio shooting, well my thought is that was an assasination of his sister and attempted on her date killing others to cover that fact.

So what do I think would help? What law that would be constitutional? The only solutions I can see are get rid of the gangs and the reason for them, and a more controversial measure,  require that all purchasers of ammo show their FID to buy ammo, just like you need to show id to buy beer. The sale would NOT be required to recorded or registered(you don’t register every purchase of beer do you?)  This might have the effect of slowing the flow of ammo to those that have unlawful weapons. Might not but it is all I got.

That for now is all I have. Think with your brains on this, not your emotions.

Thank you

Glenn

Is the 14th amendment itself unconstitutional?

Do I really want to go down this rabbit hole?

Not really but here we go.

I have a question, Is the 14th unconstitutional. I have come to this question after doing a friend of the court brief (http://www.ourmusic1.com/wp/?p=369)that I submitted. In that brief I detailed that it required that representation is only for male citizens 21 and over that can vote.(ok paraphrased a little).

Then today I was forced to show that the constitution is only for citizens of the USA.  I quoted article 4 section 2.  Then my mind went astray. (ok it took a few hours but).  I suddenly had the thought that because article 4 says all citizens, and the 14th specifies a certain group, they may be in conflict. Or can you have 1 part say one thing and then in another specify for whom it is for?

Remember article 4 is BEFORE the 14th so the 14th would over rule it.

Article 4 section 2 – The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

and now the relevant part of the 14th that is under suspicion

is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Now to help you understand how this, at the time may not have been in conflict, let me explain some of the differences between now and then.  When this was drawn up, a woman had little rights, if she was married she was totally under her husband. she could not own property, and was not considered a full person. If she was single she had little more rights (could own property) but was still not considered a full person. It was a hard time to be a woman for sure.

So there we have it, a woman was not considered to be a full citizen at that time. in the legal docs she was not even considered a person.  Now with the 19th giving her the right to vote, this did not change the 14th and she was able to vote for a representative that could not represent her as the 14th specifically gives that right to men. the 19th while ok, was not well enough written(and at the time fully contested due to concerns that a woman would vote the same as her husband as he was the head of her, thus giving the man 2 votes.) Remember different times.

notice how simple  the 19th is and how it ONLY does 1 thing and changes nothing else.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Now with the equal rights  act declaring a woman a full citizen (which is legal due to nothing in the constitution forbidding it) the definition of a citizen has been changed. Thus changing the meaning of article 4 and several others. But leaving the definition of the 14th unchanged, as that would take a constitutional amendment.

so I ask, is it unconstitutional or just sexist?

National Popular Vote

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

 

 

Is the National Popular Vote unconstitutional?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of February 2019, it has been adopted by eleven states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 172 electoral votes, which is 32.0% of the Electoral College and 63.7% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.

By awarding the votes based on who ever gets more nationally this compact would virtually eliminate the electoral college. And allow 6 states to elect the President.

Now add in that this compact is unconstitutional. yup. article 1 section 10 says so. they need congress to approve it. I dare any good lawyer to take on these states when they eventually get this set to go against them.

article 1 section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

And if that wasn’t plain enough there is this from the next paragraph

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.