Another Dred Decision by a Lower Court

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version (YouTube or SoundCloud)

On Thursday, I posted an article entitled, “The Bill of Rights is Missing an Amendment.”

I began by explaining that we do not have three “separate but equal” branches of government – that the federal judiciary, or Judicial Branch of the federal government, is by far the most powerful and influential branch of the three. The other two are of course the Executive and Legislative.

To this, I had an interesting, yet confusing comment on my YouTube channel regarding my assertion, which is a fact, not an assertion. The commentor stated: “I don’t know why you think the supreme Court is so powerful…” At first I thought they must be kidding, but I don’t think so.

The supreme Court has become the ultimate arbiter of every law and every right in America. Their authority is not to be questioned and their rulings are final and should not be challenged, not withstanding a few dreadful decisions from yesteryear. read more

The Bill of Rights is Missing an Amendment

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

First Draft of Original 17 Amendments

Scroll Down for Audio Version (YouTube or SoundCloud)

One of greater problems that plague our federal government is that of cross-delegation. What do I mean by this?

I describe this phenomenon as such, owing to the fact that three branches of government are no longer “separate but equal.” As we see by the take-over of government by the federal judiciary, they are clearly the most powerful of the three. The other two branches, the legislative and executive, take to bended knee before them, and as blind mutes, comply with any and every decree. This was clearly not intended by the founders.

However, this cross-delegation can more accurately be described not as a seizing of power and authority of one branch from another, but as a voluntary giving of authority of one branch to another. The legislative branch, devoid of backbone, consistently surrenders its constitutionally mandated authority to the executive branch, giving the President authority he is not entitled to. read more

WND Exclusive – Bill of Rights: 9 Apply to the Individual but 1 Does Not?

It recently dawned on me what should be the most obvious argument for the individual right to “keep and bear arms.”

The primary purpose of the 10 Amendments that form the Bill of Rights is to protect the natural rights of the individual from an encroaching federal government function. The only way someone would not know this is if they have not read them.

In fact, each of the Bill of Right’s 10 Amendments – there were originally 17 – states this by use of the words person, people, owner, or accused. The only two that do not expressly state the individual are the Seventh and Eighth. They do, however, use inference to make the point that both pertain to the individual. read more

The Second Amendment is an Individual Right – the Founders Said So

The primary purpose of the 10 Amendments that form the Bill of Rights was to protect the natural rights of the individual from encroaching federal government function. We must remind ourselves and others of this. The only way someone would not know this is if they have not read them. So when a leftist begins to spout off about the Second Amendment, that it applies only to hunting or militias, we must remind them of this. If necessary, review each of the 10 and it will become clear that the founders did not intend for nine of the 10 to pertain primarily to the individual and yet single out just the Second as not having any individual component. It defies logic. But then so does liberalism.

So if we agree that the 10 Amendments pertain to individual rights,  we must then agree that the right to “keep and bear arms” also pertains to the individual. I might also suggest that you explain what “keep and bear arms” means. Simply put, it means to own and carry arms in defense of oneself and others.

Justin Haskins of the Blaze has cataloged several of the views of our founding fathers in the following article.

from the Blaze:

In their own words: What the Founding fathers really believed about guns

When the Founding Fathers approved the “right to bear arms” and the 13 newly formed states agreed to ratify the Second Amendment, the reason couldn’t be clearer: An armed citizenry is a free citizenry.

Yet despite the clear historical evidence showing the true intention behind the Second Amendment, liberals continue to mislead the public by asserting the founders believed the Second Amendment only protects guns necessary for everyday life in the 18th century, such as hunting rifles, or that the founders believed these constitutional protections apply only to militias, not to individuals.

These notions are nothing more than left-wing delusions, carefully crafted by people who in their pursuit of power and “public safety” have become desperate to take away law-abiding citizens’ centuries-old rights to own and operate guns.

As Richard Brookhiser, a historian and author of “What Would the Founders Do?,” concluded in his book’s section on the Second Amendment, “The founders lived among guns; they would never make them illegal; they would subject them to necessary laws, following [William] Blackstone. And they broke their own laws when honor demanded it.” 

Continue reading

Are Segregation and Integration Natural Human Behaviors?

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Over the weekend, the Atlantic posted an article entitled, “The Unfulfilled Promise of Fair Housing;” subtitled, “Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of an integrated America was about creating a more equal society, but to many white homeowners, it was a threat.”

Allow me to correct the author right off the bat. Martin Luther King, Jr. did have a dream of an integrated and equal America – one which he “envisioned.” The author, Abdallah Fayyad is showing his leftist bent by describing King’s vision as a creation. This is typical of the left – thinking equality, integration and desegregation can just be created. Hearts and minds need not be changed as long as there is a more powerful force mandating their behavior. And of course that more powerful force always comes down to the federal government.

King, to his credit, did not petition the feds, but rather he started locally, as it should be.

In 1966 he organized the “Chicago Freedom Movement march.” King sought to compel the Richard Daley administration to make Chicago “a just and open city.”

“There is nothing more powerful than the tramp, tramp of marching feet. We will march on city hall to make demands of an open city,” King said. There is nothing wrong with this. The Founders set up our system of governance to allow for the States and localities to be the laboratories of the nation. They rathered this than a giant one-size-fits-all federal solution. read more

March For Our Lives is a Nothing Burger

Guest Post by John Velisek, USN (ret.):

Saturday was the day of the “March For Our Lives,” which transformed into an all-out anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment and anti-Trump movement. Taking place in cities all across the country and funded by anti-gun left wing organizations, it will become a debacle that did not need to occur.

Ostensibly created by the Parkland school youth, it is now working with adults from leftist organizers like March for Women Live Action Fund, MoveOn.org, The Giffords group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and of course Everytown, Bloomberg’s gun confiscation group who have spewed lies since the time of the Parkland shooting.

And who can explain why a meeting was held in Broward County by someone named Debby Miller, who introduced herself as a representative of the Giffords Foundation? I thought this was all put in place by the altruistic students. And why were school funds, a taxpayer resource, used for the printing of itinerary for the March?

Students, with little knowledge and even less understanding, will take to the streets to demand that more action be taken. Ignoring the fact that there are thousands of gun laws already on the books, and those suggested would not have stopped these actions. A School Resource Officer (SRO) could have prevented parkland, or at least mitigated it, but he was under orders to maintain a perimeter and too cowardly to take matters into his own hands and save lives. Maryland had shooting as well. Law enforcement stopped that. There needs to be armed security of some type in our schools. Any school shooting that has a massacre of the kind in the past will have to explain to the parents of those harmed why there was not adequate security. read more

Finally – A Reasonable Ruling Against Sanctuary Cities

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

On March 13, 2018, it was reported that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a rather stunning panel decision regarding immigration and sanctuary cities. And for once, a federal court, via a three-judge panel, sided with the good guys – mostly. The good guys being us – the law abiding, tax paying American citizen. Considering the make-up of most courts, and the hot potato issue that is illegal immigration and sanctuary cities, any win is encouraging.

The court didn’t rule as the Trump administration and most of us would have liked. They never do. Trump has been demanding that sanctuary cities by stripped of federal funding until they comply with federal immigration law.

However they did rule that, “the federal government’s [ICE] detainer requests, which ask local governments to hold illegal immigrants for pickup, are legal.”

The ruling stemmed from a Texas law that was challenged in court. read more

Apparently, Loyalty is not Part of the Secretary of State’s Job

From Breitbart and the Common Constitutionalist

Fmr CIA Director Brennan: I Think Tillerson Was Fired for Being ‘Far Too Principled,’ Haspel ‘Should Be

Don’t Let the Door Hit Ya

Confirmed’

Under the Constitution, the legislature, the Congress and Senate, are in charge of domestic policy. The President of the United States effectively sets foreign policy. That’s the way it designed to work.

Therefore the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, gets to appoint the Secretary of State, his chief foreign affairs adviser. One would naturally assume that anyone the president chooses would be on the same page, as it were. After all, it’s the Secretary’s job to implement the President’s foreign policy designs. It is certainly not the job of him or her to develop or attempt to implement his or her own policy. The State Department is there to do the president’s bidding. In other words, one might say that the Secretary should be “sufficiently loyal” to the President.  read more

Video Podcast – Florida Gun Law Trashes Bill of Rights

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Florida governor Rick Scott signed the school safety bill into law. Let us be frightened. It will allow certain school staff to conceal carry on school grounds and that’s good. The only safe school is a hardened school. However, we need to come up with a “softer” way to describe it – other than “hardened.”

Unfortunately, it also spends recklessly with its arbitrary allotment of $300 million for mental health programs, school resource officers (because they did such a good job last time), and safety upgrades.

The biggest problem with this law is as Glenn Beck recently described it – the law nullifies one Amendment of the Bill of Rights for all persons in Florida under the age of 21. This should never be allowed to stand, under any circumstances.
read more

A Real Second-Amendment City

from Gary Demar at Constitution.com

City With Mandatory Gun Ownership Has One of the Lowest Crime Rates

The anti-Second Amendment crowd is on the warpath again. I live just a few miles from the most pro-gun city in the United States – Kennesaw, Georgia – where gun ownership is mandatory. It’s not the “Wild West” like some people predicted it would be when city officials passed a mandatory gun ownership law.

Eleven years ago, “the city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s ‘10 best towns for families.’ The award was aimed at identifying the best communities nationally that combine big-city opportunities with suburban charm, a blend of affordable housing, good jobs, top-rated public schools, wide-open spaces, and less stress.” read more