Those who feel it’s perfectly appropriate to pass legislation to make it “unlawful for any person to publish” the blueprints to a 3D-printed handgun-looking thing clearly do not understand the Constitution or the progressive nature of legal or legislative precedent.
In an Oct. 24, 1787, letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison expressed that, “Col. [George] Mason left Philadelphia in an exceeding ill humor indeed. A number of little circumstances arising in part from the impatience which prevailed towards the close of the business, conspired to whet his acrimony. He returned to Virginia with a fixed disposition to prevent the adoption of the plan if possible. He considers the want of a bill of rights as a fatal objection.”
At the Constitutional Convention, in mid-September 1787, committed Anti-Federalists George Mason and Eldridge Gerry failed to persuade any of their fellow delegates to preface the Constitution with a bill of rights.
by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist
Scroll Down for Audio Version
Being a member of the NRA these days may be one the most heinous things an American can do, according to snowflake leftists.
The push from the radical left has reached a fever-pitch against the Second Amendment rights organization. So much so that even road-side billboards have begun to crop up slamming the NRA.
The first to be legally erected was in Pensacola, Fla. The rather large billboard reads: “The NRA is a terrorist organization.” It was paid for by a former Clinton hack, Claude Taylor, who now heads up the “Mad Dog,” anti-Trump Political Action Committee (PAC). Taylor was a Bill Clinton White House staffer.
I wonder where he gets his funding? I don’t know, but if I were a betting man, I’d wager the house on George Soros. It seems like he funds most of the radical leftist hate groups.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
Scroll Down for Audio Version
On the home page of CNN.com is an article, entitled, “The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee you the rights you think it does.”
I thought – okay – its CNN posting something on the Constitution. This has got to be good. And by good, I mean really bad. Virtually the only time the left positively comments on the Constitution, they refer only to the First Amendment, for which they can bend and twist to suit their needs. It’s as if the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights does not exist.
The article begins by recounting the entire First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
It’s short, to the point and easy to understand. Apparently it is not, for the author feels obliged to drag out First Amendment expert, Lata Nott, of the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center, to explain.
At first blush I thought this a ridiculous notion, but then remembered just who, for the most part, is partaking of the wisdom of CNN – other leftists, who wouldn’t know a Constitution if you handed them one.
from The American Thinker:
Over the last 8 years, in addition to fighting Obama’s numerous wars, the US army has served as a gigantic social sciences lab under this president.
Gays can serve openly, as can transgender people. The government will even pay for some gender reassignment surgeries for trans soldiers. Women are now eligible for some combat roles, including special forces.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
Scroll Down for Audio Version
On November 3, 2016 it was announced by the Harvard University newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, that the University had canceled this years men’s soccer season, “after an Office of General Counsel review found that the team continued to produce vulgar and explicit documents rating women on their perceived sexual appeal and physical appearance.” That is horrific, because we know that normal American college-age men would never do, or even think such a thing.
The practice of rating incoming members of the Harvard female soccer team evidently began in 2012 and has continued through this year. The men’s team had evidently been creating “scouting reports” on incoming members of the women’s team, rating their attractiveness and “assigning each a hypothetical sexual position.”
Okay – that’s pretty rude. Rating attractiveness I understand. They are guys after all – but the latter is a little over-the-top.
However bad one thinks this particular incident is, it should not have been grounds to cancel the entire season. Harvard University could not think of any other way of disciplining these student athletes? Their entire season had to be canceled over this transgression? They couldn’t just issue a warning to cease or the season will then be canceled? I guess not – not when it comes to one-size-fits-all “zero tolerance.”
by: the Common Constitutionalist
These days it seems all we do is complain about the left and all the left does is complain about us, the right. It’s like the Hatfields and the McCoys.
Yet, I finally found something both the left and right agree on – free speech.
Now, I don’t mean all speech, everywhere. No, that wouldn’t be right. To the left, hate speech is where they draw the line on the First Amendment, and of course hate speech is determined only by the left.
I’m talking about free speech on college campuses – more specifically, campus “Free Speech Zones” as they’re called.
So I was more than just a bit surprised when I found myself on the same side as the ACLU and even the Clinton’s cabin boy and Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe. Oh, and the Huffington Post. Go figure.
By: the Common Constitutionalist
I haven’t commented as of yet on the Bundy ranch incident. I’ve been thinking about it and would like to share a few observations and maybe a question or two.
During the standoff: “They are flying helicopters over the herd to chase them,” Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven said. “It was over 90 degrees here today, and the cattle can’t run very far in this heat before collapsing. This is especially true for the young calves. We have a lot of them being born because it is springtime, and they don’t have the strength to keep up with their mothers when they are running. The cattle then become overheated and die.”
So my first question is, where’s PETA? Where are the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? Are they not an animal rights organization? Do they not protest the mistreatment of any animal, or do cattle not count? Or is it just like the NOW gang, the National Organization of Liberal Women, who just pretend to be for women’s rights unless it’s a liberal man who’s the abuser; and then it’s silence. Is PETA just another left wing radical group who only protest animal abuses by the right? In a word – Yep! No matter how many cattle were intentionally or accidently killed, you won’t here a peep from PETA. Not as long as Obama is king.
During the standoff Bundy’s wife Carol said it appeared snipers surrounded the family’s 150 acre ranch.
I wasn’t there, but I have heard from more than just Mrs. Bundy that there were indeed snipers posted about. If she was able to spot them, I can only conclude that they wanted to be seen or were ordered not to cover and remain in plain sight. And if that was the case, the obvious question is, Gee, I wonder why? Could it be for intimidation? Once again, I would say – Yep!
Piers Morgan Says Second Amendment Only Meant for Muskets
by: Gary DeMar
Piers Morgan has a great English accent, but it’s obvious that he doesn’t know much about the United States Constitution. Morgan is editorial director of First News, a national newspaper for children, and the host of CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight. As with most of these show hosts, they aren’t very informed when it comes to history and logic.
Morgan got into a debate over gun control after Bob Costas went on his anti-gun rant following Jovan Belcher’s murder of his girlfriend and his later suicide.
“The Second Amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns and assault rifles. Fact.”
See if you can find this claim in the Second Amendment:
“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.”
Even without this embedded constitutional right, we have the right to bear arms. Rights don’t come from the State. This point is not often made. The Constitution doesn’t say that we have a right to work or own property. The Second Amendment was included in the Constitution to ensure the already existing right to “keep and bear arms.” Morgan should study some of his own British history before he spouts off in America.
“The right to have arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court remarked that at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights there was “‘clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia’ and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.”
The Second Amendment doesn’t say what type of “arms” is included in the right to bear them. There’s a reason for this. Our founders knew that the definition of “arms” can change over time. What were “arms” in the 18th century differed from what would have been defined as “arms” in the 13th century. The Constitution was designed to be a document for the ages, not just for the late 18th century.
Following Morgan’s logic, the freedoms of speech and press found in the First Amendment should be limited to a town crier, horses and footmen to carry communiques, quill pens, and actual printing presses. This would mean setting type by hand, rolling ink ever the type, and pressing the paper on the raised letters, one sheet at a time. Since we don” press” paper over type today, therefore, to follow Morgan’s logic, we can’t appeal to the First Amendment’s right to “freedom of the press.”
If the Second Amendment was only for muskets, then it was also only for parchment and literal printing presses. Our founders knew better. Ideals transcend technology and innovation. Ideals are for the ages.
The six books I wrote in the 1980s were typeset electronically. Even so, the galley sheets still had to be pasted on boards so plates could be made. No one in the 18th century, or even in the last decade of the 20th century, could have conceived of printing exclusively with digits by way of a Portable Document Format — PDF.
Printing has made more technical advancements since the First Amendment was drafted than have “arms.” A founding father from the 18th century could easily recognize a modern-day handgun and rifle, but would be stymied by a laptop computer with software that is used to typeset a book with no hard type that could be turned into an electronic file that in the end could print a million copies of a book in days.
Community Jerk Causes First Grader to Remove ‘God’ From Poem Honoring Grandfathers’ Military Service
by: Giacomo at Godfather Politics
A first grader who attends West Marion Elementary School in the McDowell County Schools in Marion, NC wrote a poem about both of her grandfather’s military service in the Vietnam War. The poem was selected as part of a Veteran’s Day Ceremony display. One of the lines in her poem read:
“He prayed to God for peace, he prayed to God for strength.”
Someone in the community had to be a jerk and complained that they didn’t like the poem because it mentioned God. The school reacted to the jerk’s complaint, and forced the little girl to remove the line from her poem before it was allowed to be used in the Veteran’s Day ceremony.
The school’s response hasn’t set well with the girl’s family or a number of others in the community who fear that the school will use its censorship in other unconstitutional ways. They sought help from Alliance Defending Freedom, who in turn sent a letter to the school on behalf of a number of residents of the county.
Matt Sharp, legal counsel handling the case wrote to the school saying:
“America’s public schools should encourage, not restrict, the constitutionally protected freedom of students to express their faith. Students should not be censored when speaking about their faith or honoring those who valiantly served to protect our freedoms. The poem described the historical actions of her grandfather, and the Constitution protects such student expression at school.”
“School officials may not suppress or exclude the personal speech of students simply because the speech is religious or contains a religious perspective.”
“The censorship of this young student’s poem about her grandfathers is repugnant to the First Amendment rights of all students and sends an impermissible message of hostility towards religion. The First Amendment protects the right of students to discuss their faith–especially when they are discussing a historical event like this student in her poem honoring her grandfathers.”
WND tried to reach school officials to get their side of the story, but none of their requests were answered. They did note that Superintendent Gerri Martin posted the following statement on the school’s website:
“I am looking forward to collaborating with the board, our attorney, and our community to revise policy and create guidelines that will ensure the rights of free speech and freedom of religion consistent not only with the conscience of this community but the requirements the law places on us as a public school system.”
I see two major problems with this entire situation. First, the school listened to ONE person’s complaint that they didn’t like the mention of God in the girl’s poem. So what? I see and read lots of things that I don’t like, but I don’t set out to trample on the author’s constitutional right to say it. If everyone was censored based on just one person’s opinion, we would not have anything in writing, audio or video recording, billboards, magazines, newspapers. Everything would be blank, because there is always at least one person that won’t like it.
When I see something in print or video that really bothers me, I will write and tell the source that they have lost my business or that I will never watch their show, but I won’t try to stop their right to do and say what they believe. Too many Americans have died and been wounded winning and protecting the rights of free speech and religion. To censor those rights would mean that they all died in vain, and I’m not willing to say that.
The second problem is that the school knowingly violated the girl’s constitutional rights. This has been happening in America’s public schools more and more. As liberal progressives become emboldened by our liberal progressive president, they follow his example and attack the constitutional rights of students, parents and teachers. And like the president, they do it with full knowledge of their actions. In fact, in some cases, the schools have purposely trampled on the rights of students and parents in their efforts to usher in the socialist agenda of the NEA.
Parents, if you are unable to educate your children yourself or send them to a good Christian school, then you need to be actively involved with what your child is being taught and how they are being taught. Look closely because a growing number of schools are teaching globalism and one world economy and government. Students are being taught that American pride and patriotism are evil and the root of many of the nation’s problems. They are also taught that mom and dad are evil and part of the problem. Is this what you want them to learn?