Posted on 04/10/2013 5:47:40 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer
Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the majority in the decision of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, US Supreme Court (319 US 624, 1943):
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
(Emphasis from Ol' Backwoods.)
By the way, 'vicissitudes' roughly means ebb and flow, changing this way and that. You know, like HopenchangeTM.
What Justice Jackson is saying here is that this ain't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic, and fundamental rights can't just be voted away. Just because politicians can cobble together a majority in Congress, doesn't mean you lose your right to free speech, or right to petition the government for justice, or right to privacy, or the right to a speedy trial with a jury of your peers. Yeah, I know, they've been doing all these things for years, but they shouldn't be able to.
And the right to keep and bear arms falls in the same category: it cannot be voted away like the US Senate will try to do tomorrow.
US v. Heller established that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental and individual right. McDonald v. Chicago established that the states and cities must obey the 2nd Amendment as stating a fundamental and individual right.
Fundamental rights can't be voted away. You can't have a vote on the Bill of Rights in Congress. It is illegitimate, and those that try are committing treason against the Oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
Talk show host Mark Levin had an awesome rant on this last night. The video is below. Enjoy.
Tyrant Kim Un Hussein must be very pleased that his efforts to “FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” are progressing so easily.
Mr. Levin had a darned good rant on yesterday ~ think I’ll get ‘holt of him and EXPAND ON IT THOUGH.
There are a number of ways in which CW-II will start.
I would think that the top of the list would be any real attempt by the gubmit to nix the 2nd Amendment.
And hopefully, they will not try.
Should they indeed try, I will sit back and enjoy watching our gubmit loose.
Badly.
It’s not the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority...
it’s the tyranny of the hysterical!
The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP THEIR ARMS shall NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Slice or dice the second amendment any way you want, THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS!!!!
this nation is now ruled by corporations who don’t care about the people congress is supposed to represent.
Hopefully you will get in the fight with the rest of us to beat them.
Badly.
It comes down to something Jefferson talked about, but I will paraphrase:
“It will be a woeful day when the only jobs you can get are working for the people who oppress you and your neighbors.”
I think Jefferson perceived the inevitable.
Will get you the actual quote if you like, but will have to dig through like 1300 pages of Jeffersons essays and letters to find it again...
So what happens when people sitting in D.C. abrogate their responsibility to protect a right whose defense is part of the contract between the government and the governed? That would be a separate topic to be considered elsewhere.
I hate the fact that conservatives now promote the notion that a constitutional republic is not also a democracy. Democracy means “rule by the people,” which does not imply “rule by pleboscite.” In fact, a “plebe
“ isn’t even a “demos.”
Not a Democracy?
We are now.
They will pass whatever they want. The SCOTUS will let them.
And the beat will march on.
Until we STOP complying and start making it personal.
Perhaps in theory, but not in practice, where it works out as rule by the majority. That practice is in direct opposition to a republican form of government.
There are elements to a constitutional republic that are democratic, but as I explained in the article, the difference is that fundamental rights are not subject to change by a 50.0001% majority, which is what is happening now. That is the hallmark of a pure democracy, and the Founders, if you read them, were against that lock, stock and barrel.
I agree. The powers that be must be made to suffer pain, or death, before things will change.
They take a vote on that at their peril not ours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.