Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is starting to sound like a jilted suitor whose “promposal” was flatly rejected.
We get it. We’ve all been dumped. Most of us, though, learned and moved on. Not him. He’s making the rounds with sympathetic news outlets like Time and Washington Post to grumble of lost loves.
At 99, the third-longest serving Supreme Court justice is showing time isn’t healing old wounds when it comes to the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Stevens continues to pine for the one that got away. In his new memoir, “The Making of a Justice,” he writes of Heller, “Unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Court announced during my tenure on the bench.”
That’s not admitting you didn’t get to take the belle to the ball. That’s saying she also married the wrong guy, had 2.5 kids, a house with a white picket fence and tail-wagging dog that were all wrong for her, too.
Here’s a little recap on the landmark Heller decision. Dick Heller was a licensed special police officer in Washington D.C., where he also lived. He carried a gun in federal buildings by day, but was forbidden to keep his own handgun in his D.C. home under the District’s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.
That law banned the private ownership of handguns. It also held that any rifles or shotguns kept in a D.C. home must be unloaded, disassembled or locked up, and unavailable for self-defense. Heller sued. …
Larry Keane is Senior Vice President of Government and Public Affairs and General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association.
This column was published in The Federalist and is reprinted here with permission.
Right of the people. Shall not be infringed.
Done. Full stop.
There is no “Full Stop”. There is “Stop”, and there is “Go”. Possibly there may also be a “Pause”, a “Treading Water”, variations on “Amble”, “Ramble” and the occasional “Moseying along” …. but if it’s a “Stop” situation, the “Full” is included.
Oh yes, there is also a “Stuck in the mud”, that does come along from time to time.
What are you talking about?
forgot your meds today I see.
That’s pretty funny. Made me smile. Thanks.
Full Stop = Period ending a sentence. From Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice.
Imagine if some other judge said that he regretted, say, the 14th amendment. Or perhaps the 19th, the 21st, 24th, or maybe even the 26th. If nothing else, i say that this shows that Justice Robinson is not suitable to be in his position anymore when he shows open animosity towards preexisting constitutional law because it doesn’t fit with his politics.
No regerts, man.
HA!
Don’t have to imagine them saying that about the 13th amendment. Just look at Hugo Black (appointed by Democrat FDR, known KKK member), Harlan Stone (appointed to chief justice by Democrat FDR), Stanley Reed (appointed by Democrat FDR), Felix Frankfurter (appointed by Democrat FDR), William Douglas (appointed by Democrat FDR) and Wiley Rutledge (appointed by Democrat FDR)
A lot of the White Democrats I’ve encountered who regretted the Second amendment, clearly regretted the Thirteenth as well.
Imagine if you actually knew what the 2nd was all about… Nah, that’s stretching it!
Interesting comment considering that the judicial activists who legislated from the bench in Heller, that you agree with, blew off the documented original intention of the 2nd according it’s author, and overturned 200 years of Supreme Court rulings on it.
Dementia is a sad thing, and the left should be ashamed of themselves, exploiting someone who is obviously plagued with severe dementia…
True, but luckily the judicial activist who blew off the documented original intention of the 2nd Amendment (according to its author) suffering from it died a few years ago.
“When you actually look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there’s simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection. The focus was on the militias. The phrase “a well-regulated militia” was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison’s notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. And every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias, required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it’s a right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias.” ~ Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Stevens should retire. The oath of office for all judges and all government officials is to honor the Constitution. He isn’t and neither is Ginsberg. 2/6/2012 on Egyptian T.V. she said, ” I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”
Ahem. He is retired.
And almost 100 years old too.
“I retired at 99 so I could spend more time with my 78 year old kids.”
he *is* retired.
Bizarre comment since Stevens is in total agreement with James Madison, the author of the 2nd Amendment. Didn’t the NRA tell you?
“When you actually look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there’s simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection. The focus was on the militias. The phrase “a well-regulated militia” was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison’s notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. And every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias, required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it’s a right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias.” ~ Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Warren Burger was of a similar mind.
Supreme Court justices have this habit, once their off the bench, of disparaging the US Constitution. What many of these Ivy League solipsists want is to rule by philosophical fiat, like a bunch of modern Plato’s in a cave.
Which proves that he was unfit to serve and that activist judges are not a new problem.
Maybe he should be handed Plato’s sentence?
Sold into slavery?
I don’t think he’d be of use to anyone.
You are right, my mistake. He should be handed Socrates’ sentence instead, hemlock.
I hear ya bro! Dude’s like James Madison…
“When you actually look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there’s simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection. The focus was on the militias. The phrase “a well-regulated militia” was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison’s notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. And every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias, required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it’s a right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias.” ~ Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Oh wait! Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment! He would actually know! Wow! That means your criticism of Stevens is far more accurate directed towards yourself, someone who doesn’t respect the founding fathers or the Constitution.
Heller shows, among other things, how useful it is to wait for the perfect plaintiff to show the idiocy of a law.
Hoping my neighbors down the Hudson fit the bill for part 2
In the early 90’s, I had the privilege of talking with noted constitutional lawyer Don Kates about the notion of a “perfect case” to uphold the Second Amendment.
Alan Gura, the lawyer who took Heller to trial, obviously must have talked to Don as well. Don told us RKBA advocates back in ’93 that Miller was a perfect display of what is wrong when trying to litigate the Second Amendment with cases that ultimately rested upon a criminal as a defendant. Judges don’t want to find for a criminal, and so everyone’s rights suffer when you use a case like Miller to decide the Second Amendment. What was needed was a case based upon a complaint of law-abiding citizens, asking to exercise their rights.
Don told us that what was needed in a case would be:
1. A plaintiff or plaintiffs who were fully law-abiding people. No criminal history whatsoever. Heller’s plaintiffs were squeeky-clean.
2. In a jurisdiction where the Second Amendment was basically “fully thwarted,” ie, not that there were licensing fees that were too expensive, or that there were some regulatory hoops to jump through – but that there right to keep and (especially) bear arms was fully and totally prevented. Don mentioned the District of Columbia as the most promising jurisdiction for two reasons – because it met the test of fully thwarting any exercise of the Second Amendment, and because it was DC, any finding of rights by the SCOTUS were instantly federal, without having to take it to another, higher, federal court.
3. The complaint should be based on the gun control laws preventing any possibility of using a gun in defending one’s self in their own home. Again, DC was perfect for this, outlawing the possession of handguns and requiring long guns be stored disassembled. Don was adamant that the complaint should start with defense of one’s home and one’s self within one’s home, because arguing for a right to defend one’s self in public is a more complicated legal issue. To get at the core of the Second Amendment, the case needed to make the claim that the laws prevented defense of one’s self in one’s home, because the court could not hide behind other, complicating, issues of carrying in public.
4. Don also said that it would be better if a class of law-abiding citizens could be defined – and Alan Gura did just that. Mr. Heller was just the first name on the suit; there were several plaintiffs.
Alan Gura pursued a case exactly as Don Kates outlined it in the early 90’s – and won, pretty much on the grounds that Don predicted in ’93. Don knew his stuff about how the SCOTUS would view a case, which is why he was good at litigating issues in the Supreme Court.
It did not help that Miller was in jail during the challenge, managed to die before the decision and his counsel did not show up to argue the case.
A large number of strange coincidences for a case that had such a large and lasting impact on Second Amendment law for nearly a century.
To quote, “Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling. Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.”
Don told us RKBA advocates back in ’93 that Miller was a perfect display of what is wrong when trying to litigate the Second Amendment with cases that ultimately rested upon a criminal as a defendant. Judges don’t want to find for a criminal, and so everyone’s rights suffer when you use a case like Miller to decide the Second Amendment.
Every judge who heard Miller found FOR Miller. (but it’s believed that at least one of them wanted to find for Miller so that the US Attorney could appeal and establish precedent)
Then SCOTUS accepted cert when the circuit court upheld Miller’s win and the USA appealed.
Then Miller failed to appeal, and the USA got a default judgment against him. You don’t see many of those in SCOTUS. If the NRA wasn’t in support of the NFA, they could have paid Miller’s attorney to finish the job and I’m reasonably certain SCOTUS would have found for Miller.
Then Miller failed to appeal,
Oh, for crying out loud, APPEAR.
True. The plaintiff exposed the idiocy of justice Scalia who blew off the documented original intention of the 2nd Amendment and overturned 200 years of court rulings when he legislated from the bench in Heller.
Just hurry up and die already. The devil is getting impatient.
not first on my list to drink to, but i’d manage.
seems as though a decent multiple celebration should be right around the corner.
never works out that way.
yet.
How many other amendments would you want to get rid of that you don’t agree with judge?
If the old buzzard doesn’t like our constitution he should move to Venezuela or Cuba.
An extremely interesting comment considering that Stevens agrees with James Madison and you disagree with the documented original intention of the 2nd…
“When you actually look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there’s simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection. The focus was on the militias. The phrase “a well-regulated militia” was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison’s notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. And every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias, required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it’s a right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias.” ~ Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Meanwhile, America regrets John Paul Stevens.
Why won’t he or Ginsburg do the decent thing and just die like regular humans? At this point, I’m starting to think some evil progressive Marxist genius had them both mummified and turned them into Supreme Court Teddy Ruxpin dolls.
Stevens seems to think the Bill of Rights is a grant of privileges from the government to us citizens. There are a lot of people with this misconception but it’s pretty damning when a former Justice of the Supreme Court holds this view. Stevens is an elitist tyrant.
You seem to think that an amendment which prevents Congress from disarming individuals who were required by federal law to bring their own guns from home for service in the Militias, which were primarily used as slave patrols due to their ineffectiveness in war, is an individual right to own guns for personal self-defense, which isn’t mentioned anywhere in the 2nd nor in the notes of its author as they wrote and passed it.
“When you actually look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there’s simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection. The focus was on the militias. The phrase “a well-regulated militia” was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison’s notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. And every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias, required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it’s a right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias.” ~ Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Maybe someone should have denied him his Second Amendment arms rights while he was in the Pacific fighting WWII.
I got to watch my beloved grandmother circle the drain and it’s sad, no doubt. But this one guy does not get the last word on what it means to uphold individual liberty and the Bill of Rights that codify the civil society. Molon Labe, mic drop.
He seems to be the EXACT sort we have a constitution to protect us against.
I’m sick of liberals B S,
After your out of office,,,
Go home, & shut up…!
Although Stevens is correct in his assessment that Heller is pure judicial activism that completely blew off the documented original intention of the 2nd Amendment and overturned 200 years of court rulings, he’s 100% wrong that it’s the worst decision by the right-wing block of judicial activists who frequently legislated from the bench even to the point of directly violating the Constitution like they did in Bush V. America when the court created a vote counting “deadline” out of thin air that doesn’t exist in law anywhere, then or now, to throw out 180,000 unexamined ballots overturning the results of a presidential election, and violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Heller was just pure judicial activism, not a violation of the Constitution like Bush V. America is.
Even for a troll, that’s pathetic. Zero out of ten, kid.
I’m uncertain why you think the founding fathers are “trolls” just because they documented their reasons and intentions for writing the 2nd other than it doesn’t make you “feel good” about the NRA propaganda you want to be true. Can you explain why you’re do unhappy about the original intention of the 2nd Amendment?
Obviously on bloomberg or soros payroll.
I doubt Soros or Bloomberg funded Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Madison… Feel free to hold a seance and tell James Madison he’s wrong about why he wrote the 2nd Amendment…
“When you actually look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there’s simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection. The focus was on the militias. The phrase “a well-regulated militia” was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison’s notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. And every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias, required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it’s a right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias.” ~ Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice.
The ability to have the militia is predicated on the ability to own a firearm, not the reverse. That said it makes things like feature bans on firearms that will “decrease their lethality” 100% uncontsitutional.
Qualifying Militia members were required by law to bring their own guns from home, and also required by law to be enrolled with the company commander in the militia of their locale, which is why the 2nd protects the right of members of the militia, like it actually says. And doesn’t mention anyone else at all.
“no one else at all.” Perhaps you’re ignoring that THE PEOPLE get to keep and bear arms, not the militia.
Read a book. Preferably one with the constitution in it.
Ok. Good idea!
Oh my goodness! Look what I found!
The Founders words, as well as their meticulous grammatical construction, leave no doubt as to their intentions:
“Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”
“Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”
In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.
The “absolute” clause construction of the Second amendment was quite common at the time, and appears in many state constitutions and framing documents. The primary purpose in these constructions is to give the conditions under which the rest of the sentence is true or valid. As a prime example of the ablative absolute, the first clause of the Second Amendment may stand grammatically free, but serves semantically to modify or clarify the meaning of the rest of the sentence. The Framers were clearly familiar with the ablative absolute and used it not as rhetorical fluff or flourish, but as a way of clarifying intent, in this case clarifying that the right to bear arms is granted in the context and within the scope of establishing a militia. Nothing more, nothing less.
*** Bear Arms ***
The overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities. A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military.
Also feel free to try and destroy the documented records of why representatives from slave states demanded the creation of the 2nd…
At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:
“Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States… By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defense is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither… this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.”
George Mason expressed a similar fear:
“The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution]“
Henry then bluntly laid it out: “If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress… Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.”
Why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry? “In this state there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States… May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free.”
Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they’d use the Constitution to free the South’s slaves (a process then called “Manumission”).The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing): “Slavery is detested. The majority of Congress is to the North, and the slaves are to the South. They will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission,” said Henry. “And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defense and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?
“This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it. This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress.”
Patrick Henry even argued that southerner’s “property” (slaves) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil: “In this situation,” Henry said to Madison, “I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone.”
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid. “I was struck with surprise,” Madison said, “when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not.”
And while you’re at it, destroy several hundred thousand colonial texts showing how the founders actually used the English language…
The Founders words, as well as their meticulous grammatical construction, leave no doubt as to their intentions:
“Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”
“Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”
In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.
The “absolute” clause construction of the Second amendment was quite common at the time, and appears in many state constitutions and framing documents. The primary purpose in these constructions is to give the conditions under which the rest of the sentence is true or valid. As a prime example of the ablative absolute, the first clause of the Second Amendment may stand grammatically free, but serves semantically to modify or clarify the meaning of the rest of the sentence. The Framers were clearly familiar with the ablative absolute and used it not as rhetorical fluff or flourish, but as a way of clarifying intent, in this case clarifying that the right to bear arms is granted in the context and within the scope of establishing a militia. Nothing more, nothing less.
*** Bear Arms ***
The overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities. A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military.
That’s some weapons-grade selective misinterpretation of both founder’s words and grammar right there.
You can find numerous quotes from people involved in authoring the Constitution and from contemporary legal documents supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms.
And, grammatically, just because sometimes introductory clauses are causal doesn’t mean that all introductory clauses are causal. Sometimes they are explanatory, as in the case of the second amendment. Your argument from grammar has been discarded by even leftist legal scholars.
I totally understand why you’re unhappy with the founding fathers for documenting that the 2nd was all about ensuring the existence of state Militias to comfort representatives from slave states that feared losing their slaves. After years, more likely decades, of believing NRA propaganda about the 2nd, it must be a bit startling to realize you were lied too for such a long time, and that the evidence proving the NRA lied is overwhelming and incontrovertible. I feel for you, bro.
Take care! 🙂
Fortunately I get exactly the same number of Supreme Court votes as he does.
I don’t regret Heller. I do however regret a 99 year old senile demented old fool who should just fade away already.
The senile judicial activist who legislated from the bench in Heller, Scalia, was only 79 when he died, not 99.
He had his time to infringe on our rights, that time is now OVER.
Thank you for your service sir, but your opinion only now matters to the talking heads, not the to the court and not the fantastic decisions that will soon be coming.
Supreme court docket 18-280 – 25 more friend of the court docs filed 5-13 and 5-14, 18+ are for the petitioners. The arguments laid out in their documents are precise and follow the letter of the law. The supporting documents for the infringements are filled with garbage and their supporting documentation leaves much to be desired to even be considered tenable. The writing is on the wall, this is going to be the FIRST NAIL driven in the ANTI coffin, there will be more to follow to be sure it is sufficiently sealed tight. I am so ecstatic that I will get to see this in my lifetime and reap the benefits of it.
The Modern Democrat Party Is Directly Founded Upon Late 18th Century Bolshevik/Menshevik Communism. Indeed Victor L. Berger Was First Communist Elected To House Of Representatives! America Knew About This Threat! These Democrats Are No Longer The Andrew Jacksonians Taught In Propaganda 1977 U.S. Department Public Education. Yes. Communists Infiltrated America In The Early 1800s Causing The Civil War Pushed By Propagandist Papers Like New York Tribune In NYC! Yes. The Definition Of Menshevik Communism Is “Democratic-Socialism”! Sound Familiar?
These Clandestine Communists Also Created “Labor Progressive Party” And Only After 1977 Did Progressives Get A New Title From Academia. Yes. Communist Change Titles Like A Snake Sheds Skin. Communists Also Created FOP, AFL-CIO, ACLU, SEIU, JDL, CPUSA, NAACP, Southern Poverty Law Center, Weather Underground Group, Black Panther Party, LaRaza, Black Lives Matter, Antifa.
Yes. Amongst Many Other Federal Institutions And Political Groups. Understand This “Socialism & Communism Is NOT Free Speech”! One Can Be Arrested, Assets Seized, Interrogated, Deported, Under The 1954 Communist Control Act (still law because 1 Federal Judge Does Not Over Rule Congress Nor POTUS)! Be Sufficient In The Dark Arts Of Politics!🔺
The Constitution is not an International document. Americas Constitution is a National document designed by Nationalists to protect domestic sovereignty.
Furthermore Hate Speech, Expressive Speech, Thought Speech Are ALL CONSTITUTIONAL! Guess What Speech Isn’t Covered Under 1st Amendment? SEDITIOUS SPEECH! Communism, Wahhabism, Satanism!
Moreover The Constitution cannot be null voided nor restricted! It is s binding agreement of the people, by the people, to allow and endow in good faith actors/agents to administrate our Government. Sedition against the Constitution whether verbal or physical is ILLEGAL! Sedition against “Agents” who subvert or coerce the Constitution whether verbal or physical is Constitutional 🔺️
Excellent Books On Clandestine Communists Enemies: 1: Between The River And The Mountain; The AFL-CIO And The Vietnam War. 2. The Right Opposition By Jay Lovestone And Robert Alexander. 3 The Lovestonites And The International Communist Opposition. 4. Blacklisted From History: The Untold Story Of Joe McCarthy. 5. Liberal Bolshevism. 6. The Black Book Of Communism: Crimes, Terror And Repression. 7. The Naked Communist By FBI Agent Cleon Skousen. 8. Non Dare Call It Treason. 9. Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Perversion Of Roosevelt’s Whitehouse. 10 . Non Dare Call It Treason 25 Years Later. 11. The Rise Of David Levinsky. 12. I Married A Communist 🔺
If a Supreme Court Justice’s first duty is to the Constitution as written,then John Paul Stevens Failed.
Interesting comment considering that Stevens is in full agreement with the author of the 2nd, and you’re not…
“When you actually look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there’s simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection. The focus was on the militias. The phrase “a well-regulated militia” was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison’s notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. And every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias, required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it’s a right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias.” ~ Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice.
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ … If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” —Samuel Adams (1777)
Die.
Go to http://SpFling.com – great dating site for adults with smart search system to find a sex partner!
“Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good
idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”
~Anthony Scalia
Sounds just Antonin. It’s not a matter if law, in other words. It’s a matter of whatever Antonin can convince other people of. Scalia frequently violated the Constitution at his whim in numerous major cases such as Bush V. America, Hobby Lobby, CEOs United & McCutcheon, more…
This is the same asswipe who has no problem with the State taking your property and giving it to a developer friend. He still defends the disastrous Kel Decision where en entire neighborhood was bulldozed foe a swanky new development (run by friends of the mayor), that never materialized.
https://reason.com/2019/05/16/john-paul-stevens-is-still-trying-to-defend-the-kelo-debacle/
For a better perspective, watch Little Pink House.
Oh, for fcks sake, die already, will ya!
It’s interesting that so many people have been brazenly brainwashed into disagreeing with the author of the 2nd Amendment as evidenced by the comments here.
“When you actually look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there’s simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection. The focus was on the militias. The phrase “a well-regulated militia” was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison’s notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. And every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias, required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it’s a right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias.” ~ Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Comments are closed.