Posted on 10/23/2001 10:00:46 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Original Intent and Enumeration of Powers v. Herz
In reply to Dan from Michigan's posts:
Long-"Gun Crazy"-Constitutional... (article against individual ownership of weapons, against original intent, and against related limits upon government, by Andrew Herz)Under First: The New Consensus... (rebuttal article by Don B Kates and Randy E. Barnett)
David Barton wrote an excellent book, Original Intent, The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, I believe that a series of such books for each of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, and/or an original intent dictionary for the Bill of Rights, need(s) to be published, to help secure the Founding Fathers' and Framers' original intent and make it more easily available to the public, as well as common knowledge in the culture.
Much of the public is unaware of the importance of both original intent and enumeration of powers --- and how these basics of American jurisprudence are fundamental to limiting the powers of government. It is unfortunate that these basic concepts are not taught along with the "checks and balances of federalism," in our classrooms. And it is also unfortunate that these basic concepts are not now refreshments to, or included in, articles in the rare and elusive "conservative print media."
Because original intent and enumeration of powers are our peaceful checks against the whole of the three parts of the federal government, the legislative, executive and judicial branches --- and against the government becoming corrupt and tyrannical through its failure to adhere.
To make a word mean other than its creator's defined intent, may be used for humor. But to make the language mean other than the Framers' use, is to render the rule of law meaning---less and a path to war.
To have Liberty and a free republic responsive to the rule of law, requires adherence to the law.
But if the law is slippery, because the language suffers (as it has) from "lawyering" such as Mr. Herz's, then the law cannot be adhered to, which in-adherence is the design of authoritarian centrism whereby it achieves ruling power for the ultimate minority --- Clintonism's supremely judgemental committees and their enforcers, the "politically correct 'thought police'" ... and their progeny.*
Then, the protection that is equal for each and all of us before the law, is meaning---less and ignored before such regents of arrogating committees, courtrooms and regimes of socialism.* The scrapped rule of law is replaced by the dialogue, generated in the "politics of the moment," for the benefit of, and by, dialogists such as Mr. Herz, in the model of his worship, William J. Clinton, who "is" our "President."
Furthermore, "to make the language mean other than the Framers' original intent, is to" fabricate a by-pass through "Extra-Constitutional Space" around the right of the people to make the laws through their elected representatives. A right that is obviously at odds with Mr. Herz's allegience to "government by judiciary" and the design of authoritarian centrism.*
From : Government by Judiciary, The Transformation of the Foutheenth Amendment, by Raoul Berger, ©1977. Page 287 ---
Given a Constitution designed to "limit" the exercise of all delegated power ... the admonition contained in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, drafted by John Adams and paralleled in a number of early State constitutions, [was] that "A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution ... [is] absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty and to maintain a free government ... The people ... have a right to require of their law givers and magistrates an exact and constant observance of them."
The author of Government by Judiciary, is a retired Harvard Law School professor. Inside the front jacket of the book: "He writes: 'The Fourteenth Amendment is the case study par excellence [on the] continuing revision of the Constitution under the guise of interpretation.'" For more information on Prof. Berger, here on the Internet:
Profile in Constitutional CourageThe Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (re: Government by Judiciary)
A Free Republic page related to original intent and the wording used in the Second Amendment ---
A Defining Second (Amendment) - Part III by tangofox
A Free Republic page related to original intent, enumeration of powers, and the wording
used in the Second Amendment ---
Liberals Play SCRABBLE With The Constitution
And brityank's, Free Republic page, providing as follows ---
The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars
*As a "friendly reminder" to Mr. Herz's recruits:
From a December 12, 1999 article, "Sabrin Draws Fire on Gun Control Remarks," originally published in the Newark, NJ Star-Ledger and now posted at Murray Sabrin for U.S. Senate:"Gun control does not lead to an erosion of civil liberties, said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, who delivered a speech Saturday urging members of Reform synagogues to launch a campaign for gun control...""... he said Sabrin's analogies were inappropriate. 'His fundamental point seems to be that gun registration leads to an undermining of civil liberties. That's a claim utterly without merit,' he said."
The Rabbi's comments certainly disregard the timeless lessons of history. From the National Rifle Association's archives: New research on the Nazi confiscation of registered guns--and execution of gun owners.
Indeed, the organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, is aware of this and responded on March 22, 2000, to Rabbi Eric Yoffie: Jewish Group ... Condemns Reform Rabbi's ... Stance. The same day that "Senator Reed (D-RI) ... introduced S. 2099, The Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000. Its stated purpose is: 'To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the registration of handguns, and for other purposes.'"
We only have the rights we can defend, as long as we are able.
Sincerely,
First_Salute
"I'll be back!"
And thank you Dan from Michigan; I did not sleep last night for fear of leaving my fellow freedom fighters without this bit of moral support, in response to your two posts worth study.
As a remedy against new laws in violation of the Constitution?
Oh yeah, and that's worked so well, hasn't it?
I believe the majority of SCOTUS failings are due to a loose interpretation of the the Constitution.
What Breyer should have been SILENT in this case rather than say/spew liberal drivel.
Now the liberal legal establishment in the U.S. is fighting for the right to allow them to "interpret" written laws as loosely as possible, and in a manner supportive of their atheistic, anti-American left-wing agenda. If a law doesn't mean what it clearly states in language obvious to the general public, what use is it? The COnstitution is a very clear and concise document in most cases and the arguments for it being subject to "interpretation" are both specious and self-serving.
Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens are a disgrace to the office they all hold. They are the best of arguments for time limits to these conceited arrogant attorneys with political connections. No one should be appointed to office for life.
Breyer is a buffoon.
Yeh, Right!! Just enough so a**holes like Beyer can change the spirit of the Law to whatever they want. How'd this sh*ithead get into SCOTUS anyway. I'm so sick of subjectivism and relativism I could puke.
The framers also didn't say "Thou shalt interpret when it suits you".
Breyer is a joke...
Breyer and his fellow liberal unelected tin horn black-robed usurpers of legislative power are intoxicated with the nectar of their own inflated self-importance. They have done far too much damage to this nation already. We don't need any more "help" from them. If and when it is necessary to alter the Constitution, the people and their elected representatives will know what to do and how to do it constitutionally.
Bite me, Bryer.
Wrong! Buttbreath!
"On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823
Good Point! That is truly scary since under that definition there is no way they could violate that oath. They could interpret it to mean anything (like the consitutition requires extermination of Jews) and they could not be held accountable for a violation of their oath. The constitution means what they say it means. Pretty Scary.
Good post.
You're correct - there is no easy or quick solution. The only remedy is for a vigilant electorate to vote in representatives who will nominate and confirm strict constructionists. Eventually attrition would pack the Court with people of our mind. I suppose in the meantime we get what we collectively deserve; unfortunately conservatives lose out on their freedoms along with liberals who happily cede them.
Not so!!! Buffoons have more sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.