The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
-- Abraham Lincoln, 17 September 1859
I agree with what Lincoln said with respect to the Constitution. I understand that he meant that if law could be changed by slight of hand, versus via the means that was given to alter the law—the amending process—then we have lost all protections of a written Constitution.
I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless.
— Thomas Jefferson to W. Nicholas, 1803.
Even Lewis Carroll, whose thinly-veiled political commentary written under the guise of a childrens’ fantasy, Through the Looking Glass warned of what damage could result when a written Constitution could be altered by simply reinterpreting it out of existence.
`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master—that’s all.’
Thus, even if crudely expressed, Ted Nugent is correct when he says that it is not the paper that gives him his rights to self defense. That is a Fundamental, Natural Right, protected against governmental interference by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and made supreme over all other laws and pronouncements of the courts by Article Six, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution.
If anyone hates the Second Amendment, then they need to change it by way of the Amending process, in the same manner Prohibition was repealed.
The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever … the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
-- Justice St. George Tucker
and
“The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation — of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice.”
- James Wilson, from a series of lectures given between 1790 and 1792, ‘Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals’, in 2 The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).
Anything less is an attack on the Constitution and invokes the duty of all those who swear an oath to protect it to counter them.
It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.
-- Slick Willie
Move_Zig - 11:03pm on 03/22/2008
So, if SCOTUS should decide that the 2nd Amendment does not confer an individual right, (unlikely but just suppose) who is going to go around and confiscate all the guns?
Recall Andrew Jackson’s statement when the Supreme Court ruled for the Cherokee in Georgia.
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
The Constitution, or any law, is just words on paper unless it is enforced.
So, if the 2nd Amendment is decided not to be an individual right, who is going to go around and pick up the guns.
Not me. When the gun people say “from my cold dead hands” some of it is talk. But many firmly believe and will act accordingly. I don’t want to be the one to try to figure out which is which.
I agree with what Lincoln said with respect to the Constitution. I understand that he meant that if law could be changed by slight of hand, versus via the means that was given to alter the law—the amending process—then we have lost all protections of a written Constitution.
Even Lewis Carroll, whose thinly-veiled political commentary written under the guise of a childrens’ fantasy, Through the Looking Glass warned of what damage could result when a written Constitution could be altered by simply reinterpreting it out of existence.
Thus, even if crudely expressed, Ted Nugent is correct when he says that it is not the paper that gives him his rights to self defense. That is a Fundamental, Natural Right, protected against governmental interference by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and made supreme over all other laws and pronouncements of the courts by Article Six, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution.
If anyone hates the Second Amendment, then they need to change it by way of the Amending process, in the same manner Prohibition was repealed.
and
Anything less is an attack on the Constitution and invokes the duty of all those who swear an oath to protect it to counter them.
So, if SCOTUS should decide that the 2nd Amendment does not confer an individual right, (unlikely but just suppose) who is going to go around and confiscate all the guns?
Recall Andrew Jackson’s statement when the Supreme Court ruled for the Cherokee in Georgia.
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
The Constitution, or any law, is just words on paper unless it is enforced.
So, if the 2nd Amendment is decided not to be an individual right, who is going to go around and pick up the guns.
Not me. When the gun people say “from my cold dead hands” some of it is talk. But many firmly believe and will act accordingly. I don’t want to be the one to try to figure out which is which.