Nullification

In 1798 Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrestled with the question that we are faced with today; "What happens when the federal government oversteps its constitutional authority?"  In the Kentucky Resolutions Jefferson put forth the concept of nullification, the act of the states to undo legislation by the federal government that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to pass.   Jefferson postulated that since the states formed the federal government  and ratified the constitution then it followed that the states, not the federal government (nor, as was  later usurped by the  Marshall court, the judiciary), were the ultimate arbiters of constitutionality and especially as to the constitutionality of acts of the federal government not specifically granted to the federal government under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and that the states had the authority, under the Tenth Amendment, to tell the federal government  "No".  

Madison, commonly accepted as the father of the Constitution, in the Virginia Resolution exerted that the only way the union would survive is for the states to watch over the federal government and assure that it exercises only the powers assigned to it and agreed upon in the Constitution.

Today, under what can only be described as the most anti-America regime in our history, we are witness to the most egregious overreaches of the federal government, overreaches which not only threaten the constitution but also the entire existence of the republic. 

Obama, Holder, the liberal leftist in state and federal legislatures, the supreme court, and certain governors’ offices can say anything they want; they can issued any “executive order”, they can pass any acts and laws they want, and issue any opinions they want but the secret they know and hope you, as “the people”, never find out and act on is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that any act, law, opinion, or "executive order" that conflicts with anything  in the constitution is unlawful and is, by the nature of their being unlawful, null and void; no citizen is lawfully nor morally obligated to obey them, no law enforcement officer is lawfully nor morally obligated to enforce them, no court is lawfully nor morally obligated to adjudicate them, and no jury is lawfully nor morally obligated to pass judgment on offenses against them;  in fact all have a legal and moral obligation, as Jefferson has said,  to nullify them!

In our time no less a legal authority than the encyclopedia of United States law, the American Jurisprudence, in Volume 16 of the second edition, Section 177 (the later edition you will find this information in section 256) asserts:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.  The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement.  It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.  This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.  An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.  Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.  An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.  Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

How then do the states tell the federal government "No!"?  The process is easily established; if the federal government passes legislation outside the 19 delineated powers granted to it or which conflicts with anything in the constitution then a state legislature draws up a resolution addressing the legislation and delineates the reasons for its nullification, it  then proceeds to passes it.  The nullification legislation is then presented to the governor of the state for signature which, once signed, declares that the unconstitutional federal legislation does not apply within that state and is thus nullified.  

Until the people and the state legislatures understand and embrace the concept of nullification the central government will continue the usurpation of unintended powers until the ultimate goal of the left is achieved, the nullification of the constitution itself and with its nullification the extinguishing of the flame of liberty in this nation.

Lies and Half Truths

OK, I think it’s about time that someone exposes what I consider some of the half-truths and lies surrounding the “debate” over gun control and since no one else has tackled that “gorilla in the room” I guess I will.

“The people are behind the President on gun control!” . . . lie!   If “the people” are behind the President on gun control how does one explain the spike in firearms, high capacity magazines, ammunition, and reloading supplies sales since the Newtown massacre and since the President declared war on the second amendment, lawful gun owners, and the whole of the American people.  Firearms manufacturers report that firearms purchases since Newtown have driven firearm sales to 5-year highs, and data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation shows that the agency performed 2.78 million background checks in December 2012 (when Obama first declared war), which is up from the 2.01 million conducted during the previous month, which was the first month to exceed two million.  Or that concealed carry permit applications in Utah alone tripled in December, 2012.   Or the fact that from  December, 2012 until the present time .223 caliber ammunition (the type of ammunition for the AR-15, the most popular “assault rifle”) has flown off the shelves of sporting goods stores and departments as did the supplies needed to reload “assault rifle” ammunition; small rifle primers, brass cases, and projectiles are not to be found.   This trend has been replicated for all calibers of ammunition while the Federal government under Obama has exasperated the shortages by buying up 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition for "civilian departments" of the government.   According to a recent NEWSMAX poll 71% of the people polled responded “No” to the question “Should the federal government regulate guns of any type?”, 71% responded “No” to the question “Should Congress ban semi-automatic weapons?”,  79% responded “No” to the question “If Congress does not act, should President Obama use an executive order to ban or strictly control the sale of semi-automatic weapons?”, and 81% answered “Yes” to the question “Do you agree that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own and bear guns without infringement?”.   Perhaps a truer statement would be “Anti-gun, anti-second amendment advocates are behind the President on gun control and his despotic attempt to unconstitutionally disarm the American people.”.

“Children will be safer with more stringent gun control laws.” . . . lie!  To quote Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.  Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.".  If the first person, the school’s principal,  to confront the malevolent beast at Newtown was armed and trained in the use of deadly force it is most likely that the whole thing would have ended with that confrontation and the death of Lanza.  Instead she and twenty-five others were killed.  

In an attempt to keep people safe, both the Aurora Theater and Sandy Hill were "gun free zones".  “Gun free zones” rather than serving to protect serve in fact  as just open invitations to cowards to attack the defenseless without fear of confrontation.  The events that have spurred these most recent attacks on the Second Amendment played out in “gun free zones"; areas where the attackers could be relatively assured that their targets would be unarmed and unable to defend themselves.  These events are proofs of Beccaria’s admonition rather than supports for stronger gun control laws.   Increased gun control has only served to make the vulnerable more vulnerable not less.

“Assault rifles are more dangerous than other rifles.” . . . lie!  In a recent experiment I read about individuals were shown two rifles one which was a “standard” rifle with light coloured, wooden stock and forearm the other had a black adjustable, synthetic stock and forearm, pistol grip, and a flash suppressor.  In every case the “assault rifle”, the black one, was identified as being more dangerous . . . both rifles where exactly the same except for the configuration of the “furniture”.

“No one uses an assault rifle to hunt deer.” . . . lie!  The fastest growing variety of rifle used for hunting, plinking, and target shooting is the AR-15, the “assault rifle”.  It is as efficient in hunting as any other rifle.

“No one needs 30 rounds to kill a deer.” . . . half truth.  While it is true a hunter should only need one bullet to take a deer this statement would only make sense in the context of this “debate” if the Second Amendment’s original intent was to insure the right of the people to hunt . . . it was not.   While anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment liberals would like to deny it, the original intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people, in the form of a non-standing militia (the National Guard and federal armed services being a standing militia or army), would always have access to the firearms necessary to protect themselves and other civilians from a federal governmental which abandons the Constitution and descends into tyranny.

"Reducing magazine capacities will reduce casualties" - lie.  In numerous controlled tests it was found that the difference in placing 30 well placed shots in a target was negligible, a mere 1.44 seconds between a shooter using a 30-round magazine and 3 10-round magazines, in other words ejecting and reloading a magazine took less than 1 second (.72 seconds to be exact).  When the same tests were done with a relatively  inexperienced, nervous shooter who had difficulty ejecting and reloading the magazines the time difference was 8.6 seconds or 4.3 seconds to accomplish the reload.

"Easy access to firearms is the cause of our violent society." . . . big lie.   The arguments of those that are the current aggressors to the Constitution are that guns are the cause of violence in our society and that more stringent gun laws are the answer.  When the statistics of violence in our society are examined this assertion proves fallacious.  According to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) figures for 2011, 323 people were killed with “assault rifles” in the United States while during the same period 496 people were killed with hammers, and 650 were killed with knives.  Would it not make sense therefore that, if their real intent were to reduce violence in society and an article were to be identified as the cause of that violence, we’d be outlawing or licensing, replete with background checks, hammers or knives since they were used more than twice as many times in killings?   Likewise, since 72% of violent crimes committed with firearms were committed with handguns rather than long guns and that it is twice as likely that a long gun used in a violent crime would be a shotgun as opposed to a rifle of any sort, would it not therefore make sense to focus on those weapons?  Once again according to FBI figures 99.9% of all firearms in the United States are not used in violent crimes, 99.8% of all firearms were not used in any crime at all and only 4% of those firearms used in crimes were obtained legally.  Why then the attack on “assault rifles” and firearms legally procured?

To quote Noah Webster "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."   The answer then to the question posed is simple; pistols, shotguns, and bolt action rifles pose no real threat to an opposing force armed with modern, fully automatic weapons but citizens armed with equivalent weapons are and, in spite of what the anti-gun/anti-constitution leftist attack squads would like us to believe, the possibility of the people having to defend the Republic and the Constitution against a standing army raised and supported by a future tyrannical national government was the original motivation for the Second Amendment.

“The Second Amendment was intended to apply to the people formed into a militia not to individuals citizens.” . . . half truth.  The Second Amendment does say “A well regulated Militia, . . .” however that term, militia, must be understood with its 18th century meaning.  Since none of us were around in the 18th century we have to look to documents that are roughly contemporary to the Second Amendment, one of which is the Militia Act of 1792.   This act states, in part, “. . . each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, . . .”;  in the 18th century life expectancy of males was 35 to 50 years dependent on locale of residency (I believe it was 41 years in the United States).  Any reading of the Act reveals that  every male citizen from adulthood (18 years of age) to near the farthest extent of expected life were required to be members of the 'militia';  in  other words the militia was intended to consist of every adult male citizen.  

To ascertain the original intent of the architects in respect to the Second Amendment all we have to do is recall their words:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - attributed to Thomas Jefferson

 “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …” - Samuel Adams

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference . . .” – George Washington

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” - Alexander Hamilton

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” -  Thomas Jefferson

“Stronger gun laws will stop gun violence.” . . . big lie.  Laws do not stop crime . . . let me say that again for those too dense to understand this simple truth . . . laws do not stop crime nor any anti-social behaviours, they only provide penalties for violating acceptable social standards which when violated are deemed criminal.  It is an indisputable fact that it is only the law abiding that obey laws, those with malevolent criminal intentions do not. The view that new, more restrictive gun laws will somehow cause criminals to be deflected from committing criminal acts is not just naïve but verges on criminal malfeasance when that view is held by elected officials.

If stringent gun laws actually reduced violence then Chicago and New York City with among the most, if not the most, stringent gun laws would be the safest cities in America . . . they are not!  Recreational use of drugs has been illegal in this country for over 100 years and laws forbidding them have become increasingly stronger and numerous yet drug abuse is today as bad or worst than it has ever been.   Rape is illegal yet it still occurs, theft is illegal and still it occurs, and more relevant to this “debate” assault and murder are both illegal and in spite their illegality they still occur.  

While preventing firearms access for violent criminals and the violent, or potentially violent, mentally ill is necessary to protect society.  I would pose that there must be some rational relationship between public safety and such restrictions.  There is absolutely no rational relationship between someone who is convicted of a non-violent felony, for example tax evasion, and the probability that such a felon will commit a violent act in the future nor is there any rational relationship between someone who suffers from a benign mental disorder such as obsessive compulsive disorder, for example, and the probability that the sufferer, due to this relatively benign mental condition, will commit a violent act with a firearm in the future.  When establishing restrictions specificity must be used to protect the rights of individuals rather than painting members of a class with a broad brush for the purpose of political expediency.

Stronger gun laws will only force ordinarily law abiding citizens to choose to either become victims or criminals. 

“We need to ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines to prevent future Newtowns.” . . . big lie.  The investigation by police reported that 4 semi-automatic pistols were found in Sandy Hook elementary school, Lanza left the semi-automatic assault rifle and its high capacity magazines in his car in the parking lot.   Lanza used hand guns, not an assault rifle to commit the massacre.  Why then is the Obama controlled media and his administration pushing an assault rifle/high capacity magazine ban?  Remember this is the administration whose mantra is “never let a crisis go to waste”.  This is the liberal left’s opportunity to further its agenda to disarm the American people and kill the Second Amendment by cynically and cold heartedly using the slaughter of these children do it.  

“Disarming the people is the most effective way to enslave them.”  . . . THE TRUTH.  Every totalitarian regime needs to accomplish three things to secure their despotism; (1) destroy the family unit, (2) control communications and (3) disarm the people.  Where is the United States on this path?

Do your homework and don’t silently accept the lies . . . stand up for your rights.  By allowing the unconstitutional changes to the Second Amendment being proposed we will be damned by yet unborn generations for allowing the gift of liberty we enjoyed being stolen from them.