Support 2nd Amendment Rights with the “Declaration of Independence,” Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and 9th Amendment

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If I were to construct an argument to justify my right to “keep and bear arms” (including alleged “assault rifles”) under the 2^nd Amendment, that argument might consist of several of the following parts:

1) Founders’ Purpose for 2nd Amendment

As I explained in The Purpose of the 2^nd Amendment, we can learn the Founders’ intended purpose for the 2^nd Amendment by reading the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”.

According to that Preamble, the purpose for the 2^nd Amendment is not to empower Americans to hunt deer or ducks, or defend against an attack by Indians or even an invasion by Great Britain.  We retain the right to “keep and bear arms” so that we can shoot officers, officials, judges, bureaucrats and employees of the federal government who “abuse or misconstrue” their powers under The Constitution of the United States.  In other words, the 2^nd Amendment is intended to guarantee that we have the necessary “equipment” to shoot those members of our own federal government who attempt to subject this nation to despotism (tyranny).

 

Is the “Declaration of Independence” a Treaty?

This is a high-resolution image of the United States Declaration of Independence (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I seem to deal with this problem every 6 to 12 months.  Someone reads what we’ve come to call the “Declaration of Independence” and sees that its proper name is “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” and leaps to the conclusion the proper name for this country must be the “united States of America”.

Back in the 1990s, when I first saw the proper name for our “Declaration of Independence,” I leaped to the very same conclusion.  I thought, “Damn!  The proper name for this country must be ‘united States of America’!!!  No wonder we’re having so much trouble in court!  We don’t even understand the proper name of our own country!!!

But over time, I realized that my conclusion (the proper name for this country is the “united States of America”) was mistaken.  That conclusion is a “rookie” mistake and I suppose that all of us who study our country’s political and legal foundation have already made it or are destined to make it at some point in the future.

•  For example, here’s a recent comment on my blog:

“I am surprised you did not pick up on or comment on the uncapitalized “u” in the word “united” in the original document and correctly reproduced in the early printings of the Declaration.

“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg”>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg”

Given that I’ve addressed this issue in the past on radio shows, or in my former magazine (“AntiShyster”), and probably on this blog, I was a little bit surprised that I felt “compelled” to write a reply.

 

The Single, Most Important Word in American History

Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. with excerpts from the Declaration of Independence in background (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC was commissioned about A.D. 1934 and dedicated (not including in the final bronze sculpture) about A.D. 1943.

I visited the Jefferson Memorial back about A.D. 2000.  As I recall my visit, I saw a stone ring at the base of the Memorial’s dome-shaped roof.  On that ring, excerpts from some Jefferson’s most memorable statements were carved in stone.  As I recall, one of those excerpts included the phrase “endowed by their Creator with certain INalienable Rights”.

I was stunned.

It’s absolutely certain and clear that Jefferson’s text in the “Declaration of Independence” (true name, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”) referred to “UNalienable Rights”.  Nevertheless—on Jefferson’s own Memorial—the word carved in stone is “INalienable”.  It’s inconceivable that the word was misspelled into stone by accident.  It’s inconceivable that the mistake has “accidentally” gone uncorrected for most of 70 years.

Still, perhaps my recollection is faulty.

Maybe (as GW Bush might say), I “misremembered” and the word “inalienable” does not appear on the stone ring at the base of the Memorial’s domed roof.

 

Three Videos

Image via Wikipedia

Simple.

Strong.

Sometimes powerful.

1.  Christian Nation     video   00:09:12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM3HeOofqIw

 

The Organic Laws of The United States of America

Image via Wikipedia

Today, most people have never heard of the Articles of Confederation or the Northwest Territorial Ordinance.  Although virtually everyone has heard of the “Declaration of Independence,” virtually no one realizes it is not merely an interesting historical document but is, in fact, as much the law as The Constitution of the United States.

Instead, virtually everyone presupposes that The Constitution of the United States is not only the “supreme law of the land” (as per Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution), but is the only “law of the land”.  As a result, people presume that in order to understand the “law of the land,” we need go no further back in time than to the Constitution.

 

A “Declaration of Independence” Speech

Image via Wikipedia

Here are two links to a speech I gave to the San Antonio Tea Party in A.D. 2009.  This speech offers a good summary of my opinions and argument concerning the significance of the “Declaration of Independence”.  The first segment is about 10 minutes; the second is about 7 minutes.

It’s one of my better speeches.  In fact, I hadn’t seen the video in 18 months or more.  I’d forgotten it.  But on seeing it again I was surprised and I had to admit:  Dayahm!  That guy is gooood!

No notes.  Not even a teleprompter.  Doin’ it “old school”.  Speaking exclusively from the heart and mind.  Pretty good.

Once I got a little ways into that speech, I found myself cheering with the crowd–for me.  Maybe my egotism and vanity know no limits, or maybe it really is a pretty good speech.

Given that the 4th of July is only about seven weeks away, it might be a good idea for you folks to use these videos to “brush up” on what we’re really celebrating on the 4th: our God-given, unalienable Rights.

The original document may be somewhat faded, but the ideas it contains are as brilliant as ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd41RAFkirE&feature=related

See also, part 2 at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-xJJr5TZzY&feature=related

 

Gary Johnson for President in A.D. 2012

Image via Wikipedia

Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, is running for the presidency in A.D. 2012.  I’d never heard of him before today.  He’s pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-Declaration of Independence, and anti-drug war. He absolutely “talks the talk” that I want to hear.

I’m not fool enough to trust any politician.  But I’m delighted to hear Mr. Johnson’s rhetoric.  Whether he wins, places or shows in the next presidential race remains to be seen.  However, the fact that he’s making speeches in praise of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and against the drug war (that provides the foundation for our police state) is evidence of a welcome shift in this country’s political climate.

Here’s the “Johnson for President” website:  http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/.

Here’s a 00:03:34 video at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk12-OJ9vLM&feature=player_embedded that also appears on his Johnson for President website.

 

There Will Be Blood

Image via Wikipedia

The federal gov-co passes roughly 20,000 legislative provisions each year that (probably) violate the Constitution.  The sheer volume of federal legislation and rule-making makes enforcement of constitutional premises practically impossible.

About 8,000 case reach the US Supreme Court each year. Most of these cases are based on alleged violations of the Constitution.  These appeals cost litigants between $100,000 and $1 million each. The Supreme Court only hears about 80 cases each year.  Thus, at least 99% of litigants alleging violations of the Constitution aren’t even heard.

Why does this deprivation of the right to redress of grievances take place?  Because the feds passed laws that allow cases filed by plaintiffs in State courts to be summarily “removed” by defendants (especially governmental defendants) to the federal courts.  Result?  The federal courts (especially the Supreme Court) have been overwhelmed with cases that should have remained at the State level.  More, since federal judges are not elected, the People have lost political control over their judges.  Because the federal judges aren’t accountable to the People, they don’t give a damn about the People’s rights.