Sharron Angle floated possibility of armed insurrection (Believes in 2nd Amendment

So, are you suggesting the Constitution be abolished? Clearly, the declaration speaks of changing the form of government. You don't appeal to arms because you don't like the outcome of an election, or because you don't care for a particular ruling of the court. If you do, you're an insurrectionist.

Is the Constitution to be regarded as the Supreme Law of the Land? If so, many actions undertaken by government personnel are illegitimate, and it is the right and duty of citizens to recognize them as such.

To be sure, the ways in which citizens act upon such recognition will generally be severely limited by the fact that government personnel who have been acting illegitimately for many years would have little qualm about undertaking further illegitimate action to squash any resistance, aided by the fact that many people credit the government with far more legitimacy than it deserves.

If a jury of twelve ordinary people, informed of all the facts surrounding a search, would find that the way in which the police conducted it is "unreasonable", it's unreasonable and thus illegitimate. If a jury, informed of the facts of the case, would find that a particular punishment would be "cruel and unusual" for the particular crime committed (i.e. the particular actions of the accused, in the context of the surrounding circumstances), it's cruel and unusual and thus illegitimate.

Unfortunately, the field of "Constitutional law" has devolved into an effort to find new ways to pretend the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. Judges offer up a set of procedures police can follow so that they're unlikely to infringe suspect's rights, and then declare that if the procedures are followed the suspect's rights should be deemed to have been honored, even if the cops deliberately acted so as to deliberately infringe the suspect's rights while operating within the letter of the procedure. In fact, the question needs to be not whether some particular procedures were followed, but whether the suspect's rights were infringed.

I have no idea how we'll get back from where we are to legitimate Constitutional government, but one should at least recognize illegitimate government actions for what they are.

From Antifederalist 80, The New-York Journal, January 31, 1788:

They [the courts] will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution that can correct their errors, or control their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controlled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controllable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other.

The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.

--Brutus

Or as the song says, "it's even worse than it appears."

But it's alright.

From Antifederalist 84, New York Journal, March, 1788

They [the courts] will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted. One adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one. These cases will immediately affect individuals only, so that a series of determinations will probably take place before even the people will be informed of them. In the meantime all the art and address of those who wish for the change will be employed to make converts to their opinion...

...Had the construction of the constitution been more with the legislature, they would have explained it at their peril. If they exceed[ed] their powers, or sought to find in the spirit of the constitution, more than was expressed in the letter, the people from whom they derived their power could remove them, . . .

Indeed, I can see no other remedy that the people can have against their rulers for encroachments of this nature. A constitution is a compact of a people with their rulers; if the rulers break the compact, the people have a right and ought to remove them and do themselves justice. But in order to enable them to do this with the greater facility, those whom the people choose at stated periods should have the power in the last resort to determine the sense of the compact. If they determine contrary to the understanding of the people, an appeal will lie to the people at the period when the rulers are to be elected, and they will have it in their power to remedy the evil. But when this power is lodged in the hands of men independent of the people, and of their representatives, and who are not constitutionally accountable for their opinions, no way is left to control them but with a high hand and an outstretched arm.

--Brutus

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once".

Judge Alex Kozinski

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.