Needful Questions
BY Herschel Smith
3 years, 10 months ago
… here are questions gun owner rights advocates should expect the representatives they enable and support to ask that any qualified candidate shouldn’t have any trouble answering:
- What did the Founders mean by “A well regulated militia”?
- What did the Founder mean by “being necessary to the security of a free State”?
- What did the Founders mean by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”?
- What did the Founders mean by “shall not be infringed”?
- How can past Supreme Court opinion specifying protected arms as those being “in common use at the time” not apply to the types of firearms needed for militia service?
Hell, correctly answering these should be required to graduate high school. But it won’t happen even with Republicans nominally in control of things, let alone if there’s a blue wave in November. So what “legal” recourse is available?
You can’t hoist them on their own petard. Judicial immunity means you can’t take them to court for the subversion of Founding intent. And good luck getting the current crop of interested/compromised/beholden Deep State Swamp denizens to even suggest impeachment, although allow a Democrat supermajority and don’t be surprised to see Clarence Thomas targeted anew.
There is one other legal alternative. Per the Hoover Institute:
“Congress should exercise its power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts. The Constitution provides that Congress is authorized to establish those federal courts subordinate to the Supreme Court and set forth their jurisdiction. Congress also has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and regulate its activities. Accordingly, Congress should exercise this authority to restrain an activist judiciary.”
I’ve known about this power for a long time. So have the senators. They will never use it, especially because they see the black robed tyrants as high priests.
On June 19, 2020 at 9:59 pm, 41mag said:
Asked McSally her view on Militias 3 months ago.
No response.
Oh but she put her life on the line for the 2A…..pleeez
On June 19, 2020 at 10:20 pm, Ned2 said:
We are living with a de facto politburo. The similarities to the Soviet model are eerie.
The Second Amendment doesn’t exist anymore, hasn’t for a long time and as for the rest of our “rights”, it’s just an illusory array of rules that can be changed, altered or abolished at the whim of some nonentical government lackey.
On June 20, 2020 at 6:58 am, Heywood said:
Yeah, they will vote for judicial restraint the day after they pass term limits.
On June 20, 2020 at 9:04 am, Longbow said:
Congress may also impeach a Judge and remove him from office. What is lacking is the WILL to do it.
On June 20, 2020 at 9:30 am, blake said:
Even if Congress were to remedy the situation, the left will sue, and the courts will rule they have the power they have arrogated to themselves.
On June 20, 2020 at 9:57 am, Orange Julius said:
Limit the judicial branch?? Legislators use them for cover! Why should they limit the branch of government that is absolving them from having to do anything more consequential than naming post offices?
On June 20, 2020 at 10:59 am, dad29 said:
Orange Julius: winner, winner, chicken dinner!!
The Courts provide the outcomes that the pols favor. So to the pols, it’s “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
On June 20, 2020 at 11:23 am, Tom said:
CONgress.
On June 20, 2020 at 12:22 pm, MTHead said:
Try this argument. Under the constitution, the militia was under the control of the government. Pretty much a standing army. As everything about it was already regulated by the states under command of the federal. In the constitution proper. But this is an amendment in a bill of negative liberty’s. (nothing given to government).
Ask yourself what would stop the government from using it’s regulation of the militia as it pleased, tyrant style? (It can’t be a bill of rights if it adds to government power.) So, what would be the only regulating body able to resist such tyranny?
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Anyone doubting paranoia of government at that point in our country’s history need only read the 3A to confirm it’s existence.
On June 21, 2020 at 11:21 am, Bill Buppert said:
Ned2 nailed this elegantly. Whatever you think you know from the government obedience classes colloquially known as “civics” is fluid in definition but the bottom line is that the notion of three separate branches is illusion and misdirection. The whole of the Federal government a massive unitary bureaucracy with one goal in mind for all its constituent parts: maintain and central expand power at all costs. Hamilton and his Federalist soviet built this and set the monster in motion.
Communism is the end state of all government power.
On June 21, 2020 at 5:39 pm, Ron W said:
“Try this argument. Under the constitution, the militia was under the control of the government.” –MTHead
According to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8.16, the Givernment only has power “for governing such part of them (the militia) as may be EMPLOYED in its service. Reading the 2nd Amendment as a senrtence by the rules of English grammar, “militia” in the subordinate opening clause, must agree with “the People” in the 2nd main clause which stands as a complete sentence and states its main idea. The People, free armed citizens, are the militia. The government has NO rights, only delegated powers and according to the plain language of the 10th Amendment has NO power unless it is delegated to it. The greater always delegates to the lesser. All gun laws pertaining to the People are unconstitutional and UNLAWFUL. Only “such part of them” who may be EMPLOYED in its service are under government power.
On June 23, 2020 at 10:58 am, Gadfly said:
“They will never use it, especially because they see the black robed tyrants as high priests.”
They (the Dems/Leftists) have already tried, and will no doubt do so again if they see it as advantageous. It’s just another bludgeon to beat us with.
You may ask “When did they try?” I don’t have the specific citation, but I recall distinctly a few years ago an anti-gun bill being pushed by Schumer and the usual suspects that included a very specific line in the text that read something like “No US court shall have any jurisdiction for this Act.” I was flabbergasted to read this and thought “No way”… then found out about Congress’ ability to limit court jurisdictions.