Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congressman David N. Cicilline introduced a bill today which effectively dismantles the right of Americans to defend themselves from government tyranny. It is important to understand how such assaults on individual liberties, inherent rights, and American freedom are regarded as acceptable. And how we can fight back for our rights before they are taken away as a death from a thousand cuts.
In the eerie halls of elite institutions where academics and the intelligentsia debate grand ideas behind closed doors, some of the greatest ideas and theories are devised. That is, until they are strategically implemented from thoughts to actions in the real world.
The ideas pontificated are ones that range across an array of subjects of paramount importance. From God’s existence, to economics, to science. Typically, from the perspective that regards government as highly as gods and man’s ability to reason equal to the Creator. Some of mankind believe even in the ability to reason better than all individuals in mankind. Those sorts seem to hold the belief they are supreme on how to conduct the world best; one which they did not create.
That very last point is something the religion of secular leftism even agrees with regarding monotheistic religions. However, when it comes to science and religion, one side has definitely proven to attract a better majority of belief in a theory on how the world was created and works. There are more practicing Christians, Muslims, and Jews, and probably even Jedi, than people who actually practice real science as an atheist.
One of these brilliantly catastrophic theories created from such a perspective found in those dreary elite halls is the “Living Constitutional Theory of Interpretation.” In short, this perspective believes that the words and meanings of commonly understood terms are malleable and ever-changing “due to the times.” To believe there are more words and meanings within the four corners of four large and articulately explained documents held at the National Archives Museum than there actually are is one hell of an assertion.
As if a white piece of printer paper, made from wood, in some other reality than ours, was really pink, and made of cotton from Giza. Being color-blind would be an acceptable excuse, if secular leftism’s commandments allowed for mercy, such as other religions.
Constitutional Originalism, and its statutory spinoff called Textualism, believe that words should be interpreted as the laws in which they make up are stated; and the commonly understood meaning of those words by the electorate. Not the elected. This is not a shocking theory.
Last night, a friend whom I hold high in regard intellectually, a strong and sound litigator with an apex-esque aptitude for constitutional law, sent me something which, quite literally, shifted my perspective on reality. Importantly, it did on constitutional originalism, as well.
It was, unironically, Chapter III of the Vatican’s Second Constitution. Such as Article III of the Constitution which governs the Supreme Court: “But since Sacred Scripture Must be read and interpreted with the aid of the same Spirit through Whom it was written.”
Studying throughout my career, I have researched and first-hand experienced personally the ruin which befalls man when the meaning of words are twisted from their original meaning. No where in the Constitution is the word “black” used. So why is the reasoning in Dred Scott v. Sanford to create a constitutional interpretation that black people were property of whites?
Every time the living constitution is used as the justification, not only are some of the words, reasons, or logic not found within the document; the unintended consequences are to the detriment of the American people for who the government sought “safety.” Roe v. Wade and Korematsu v. United States are two prominent precedents that come to mind.
Ideas which are written into law by representatives the People consented to govern, whether hundreds or thousands of years ago, have a specific meaning when ratified. We are a country, such as the Roman Republic, that follows the rule of law, and not of man or religion. Laws must be upheld as understood when implemented. Especially, the most Supreme. Even the supreme law of man can be changed in our country, we have process for that.
God’s laws? Well, take it up with your Creator.
The Second Amendment is quite clear. Those who ratified our inherent right to self-defense and freedom from government force we’re quite specific when they stated, “A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (Emphasis mine.) The United States is a Nation made up of individual States. Individual States are made up of We the People.
If the founder’s wanted to limit the AR-15 or other “assault weapons,” (weapon, a very broad legal term, such as “arms”) they would have. Something tells me, though, when they were fighting the greatest empire the world had ever known at the time, General Washington would have ordered a lot. Abraham Lincoln, most likely, would have ordered them by the tens of thousands in our war against government-sponsored slavery.
The Founders, probably, would have limited the use of our nuclear arsenals domestically against Americans, as Democrats have. Just because they could not predict it, does not mean they did not want the people to still have sufficient defense. The United States may be undefeated in World Wars, but we have lost some really long ones in our history. The enemy did not have Nukes either; we did.
Our Founders lived under tyranny. They knew what it was like. Those at the Constitutional Conventions established a sound and clearly expressed system to avoid rule by a monarch or oligarchy. Stalin and Hitler had advisers until they executed them.
As to our Founders, then again, most all of them at least believed in some Creator that was not the government. Unlike other dictators. Maybe it is time we start listening to the ideas of the people who got their ideas from higher minds, rather than those of secular leftism, from the past and present.