|
Real0ne -> RE: Can someone please explain this... (3/3/2013 10:29:52 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fellow
What is the main purpose of Obama started hysteria against private gun ownership. Obviously, no tyrannical government wants armed private citizens. However, in Obama case, this is not the main reason. He understands well the anti gun policies can not succeed under current circumstances. His goal is to create confusion inside America, fighting sides about overblown side issues, directing attention away from the main issues (illegal wars, robber barons, economic collapse). His coming immigration reform activity serves the same purpose.
How can possession of firearm be illegal in the US? It is a granted right by the Constitution.
You are correct and it is long since time that we pass a 'new' 2nd amendment. Forget laws that can be struck down. We The People have the power to tell the supreme court what we want and in plain English.
the first question however is; does anyone here know for a FACT who we the people are? I am not talking presumptions, I am talking I want it in fucking writing WHO we the people are.
quote:
Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 US 243 - Supreme Court 1833 32 U.S. 243 (____)
7 Pet. 243
Supreme Court of United States.
We are of opinion, that the provision in the fifth amendment to the constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government 251*251 of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states. 32 U.S. 469 (____) 7 Pet. 469
THE LESSEE OF EDWARD LIVINGSTON AND OTHERS
v.
JOHN MOORE AND OTHERS.
Supreme Court of United States.
They are also charged with being contrary to the ninth article of the amendments of the constitution of the United States, and the sixth section of the Pennsylvania bill of rights, securing the trial by jury.
As to the amendments of the constitution of the United States, they must be put out of the case; since it is now settled 552 that those amendments do not extend to the states: and this observation disposes of the next exception, which relies on the seventh article of those amendments. quote:
Withers v. Buckley, 61 US 84 - Supreme Court 1858
The question thus presented we think of great importance, out not of much difficulty.
"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves; for their own government, 91 and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a Constitution for itself, and in that Constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular Government as its judgment dictated. quote:
(123 u. s. 131) THE ANARCHISTS' CASE.1
Ex parte SPIES and others.
(October 2 J, 1887.)
ERROR, WRIT OF—FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT—MOTION IN OPEN COURT.
That the first 10 articles of amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the national government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since.
quote:
It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten amendments were adopted as limitations on federal power, yet, in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights—common-law rights—of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a state under the fourteenth amendment. In other words, while the ten amendments as limitations on power only apply to the federal government, and not to the states, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the fourteenth amendment as to such 'rights limits state power, as the ten amendments had limited federal power." It is also contended that the provision of the fourteenth amendment, which declares that no state shall deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," implies that every person charged with crime in a state shall be entitled to a trial by an impartial jury, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself.
We the People? or We the States?
Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788
Patrick Henry's speech June 4, 1788, opening speech to the Virginia Convention that was debating whether to ratify the proposed new Constitution of the United States.
Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government--a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states--a proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations.
The present circumstances of France--the good offices rendered us by that kingdom--require our most faithful and most punctual adherence to our treaty with her. We are in alliance with the Spaniards, the Dutch, the Prussians; those treaties bound us as thirteen states confederated together. Yet here is a proposal to sever that confederacy. Is it possible that we shall abandon all our treaties and national engagements?--and for what? I expected to hear the reasons for an event so unexpected to my mind and many others. Was our civil polity, or public justice, endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened, or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature! Make the best of this new government--say it is composed by any thing but inspiration--you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost. Henry was full of shit! We have happy happy happy land with bond slave debt foisted upon every american and criminal government that gives our labor to the banks who in turn fuck us some more
It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking.
I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.
The people gave them no power to use their name.
That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.
So do we ignore the fact that the whole "people" thing is a fraud and just because we want to think of it differently does not change the underlying law.
So to you and everyone else, who the fuck is "we the people"?
It should be painfully clear it is NOT you and I.
|
|
|
|
