Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira

— Approximately 30 days ago I received a long email from someone. At the end was a moderate length, beautifully phrased quotation, the core essence of which was this idea: a person who devotes his adult life to try to hold government accountable so citizens do not have to resort to force is noble and is devoted to one of life's most noble pursuits. When I read that I thought of people I know, who have stretched me to grow. Those who are engaged in that noble cause know who they are.

Today, I am sad: The United States Supreme Court rejected the Silveira v. Lockyer case, and I do not feel free. I have not felt that way for a long time. My brain's rational thought processes convince me that I am not truly free. This is because I, and others, have been, and still are, denied one or more of our most fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, we have only the illusion of freedom and the reality of oppression. Oppression is enforced via perverted rules, misleaders and their subordinates.

These perverted rules exist. What follows is crucial. Please pay close attention. The perverted rule I will highlight is not complex, but it is vital that you comprehend this perversion.

Immunity for government and its agents who abuse their powers and who disrespect citizens' rights. Example: the First Amendment's "right to petition government for redress of grievances" sounds wonderful. It is lovely. Ditto for the ban against ex post facto laws, and the entire Bill of Rights. But the core, corrosive, corrupting, over-all-arching problem, is this: None of these rights are self-enforcing nor worth anything when a) Citizens are too gutless to demand that their peaceful assertion of rights be honored, and b) Government has passed laws that make its Executive, its Legislature, its Judiciary, and its sworn peace officers, immune for their wrongdoing in contravention of citizens' rights.

What value is the "right to petition to redress grievances" or to file a lawsuit (which is a form of the right to petition government for a redress of a legitimate grievance) when the petition or lawsuit or both crashes into the solid legal wall of government immunity or the government refuses to hear the petition (lawsuit) or refuses to take it seriously or refuses to apply the applicable law correctly?

That is what happened with Silveira at the Federal 9th Circuit. A majority of judges at the 9th Circuit upheld its prior decisions that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to arms. The judges, in their prior decision, declared the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to arms, and they reaffirmed that decision with their Silveira decision.

They were given an opportunity to revisit their precedent, and they failed to do so.

A handful of judges with a Constitutionally correct comprehension of the Second Amendment dissented, but their righteous message did not prevail. Hence, we have judges interpreting away a right in the guise of construction of a Constitutional provision. But the Second's text remains unchanged: "the right of the people" is still "the right of the people." The Second does not state, "the right of the army" nor "the right of the police." "[S]hall not be infringed." is, pragmatically, as clear, as strong and as bright a constitutional command as can be constructed with four words.

The militia referenced in the Second's beginning was, for the Framer's time, a synonym for most of the people who merely functioned in a different capacity while still retaining their own privately owned fire arms. But, that is part of the problem. Rights are expressed in words. Words are plastic. Words are malleable. Judges are wordsmiths. Some like to stretch malleable words to conform to their bias, their judgment. And, judges are legally immune for their judicial acts, because they said so.

The only "immunity" that expressly appears in the original U.S. Constitution, before it was amended, is stated at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1:

"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

"Entitled" is code for "a legally enforceable claim." "Immunity" is a synonym for freedom from prosecution or punishment for peacefully exercising a right, which is tantamount to a right to exercise a right, without government's permission being required and without fear of punishment.

The Constitution does not declare that the three branches of government and/or their agents, nor any of them, have immunity for what they do in office in contravention of peaceful citizens' rights or immunities.P> Reformulated, the truth is this:P> 1) We are supposed to have rights;

American governments (federal/state/local) — can invade those rights and escape being held accountable because of the overlapping array of unconstitutional immunities governments now enjoy, with the blessings of the American Judiciary, which is supposed to function as "the Guardian of Liberty."

For a more detailed, scholarly elaboration of this "right to petition versus immunity" problem, everyone is strongly encouraged to read John Wolfgram's "How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition" which can be found on line at:

We live in a perverted, disingenuous nation full of callous, cavalier, self-righteous, constitutional illiterates, in and out of government, who are dangerous and oppressive. Despite the best efforts of some of the best people I know (their passion, sustained commitment, critical, cerebral energy, delayed gratification, sacrifice, etc., ) I have serious reservations if any of us, including myself, individually or in the aggregate, have accomplished anything meaningful in terms of "the big picture" or of delaying open armed conflict with our own governments. I suspect that all we have done is this:

1) Peacefully communicated a principled protest to government, that continues to be rebuffed;

3) Documented that we have compelling grounds to be disgusted, alarmed, alienated, and worse, and why;

4) Established that much of government and many of its most important agents are smug, arrogant, dangerous, oppressive, and constitutionally insensitive or callous or all of the above.

5) Failed to hold governments accountable for their abuse of powers. P>6) Lost control of our own governments. Free elections every two or four years do not allow us to control our government adequately. All we do is elect people to office who can abuse us and then hide behind the same set of immunities . . . and abuse us they do, regardless of their party affiliation or campaign promises.

Even the jury system is inadequate. The judges have declared they are the sole law giver in the courtroom and all jurors have to obey the law as they give it to them, their version of the law, the same law that legislators and judges often have immunity from when they declare what the law is.

Let me put it another way: Who would sign a contract with another person when the contract said that the other person gets to determine what the rules are, gets to change the rules arbitrarily, without being held accountable, gets to unilaterally interpret and apply the rules, and gets to force you to obey his rules, and you must obey his unilateral interpretation of his rules because that is one of his rules? And he has a monopoly on force?

Post your basis for saying the "USSC's decision was on law".

--- They refused to make a decision, or to even give a reason for refusing.

Good question. The USSC receives tens of thousands of requests to hear cases every year. The only grant a Writ of Certiorari (take the case) in about 2% of those cases.

Those cases are usually limited to a few areas, 1, Disputes in decisions between the Federal Appeals Courts, 2, "New" law, such areas (internet, drug testing, etc.) they have not considered before, 3, new Constitutional issues.

This case had two problems. Both are well discussed in posts made weeks ago. 1, Petition was drawn by non-lawyer, and had legal points in error. 2, Issues had been spoken to before.

Many 2d Amendment groups were not in favor of this case, due to it's problems. Suggest review the prior posts who explain this well.

Happy Holidays

Item 3: The Abolition of the right to bear arms. This must be done to reduce the military potential of those assigned the bottom tier of the emerging multiethnic American Empire. Those in higher tiers will retain their guns – and thereby their military resources – through devices such as the Nation of Islam’s security company and street gangs. Imperial conversion cannot be completed without breaking the military potential of the white working class, the historic key to military dominance of North America.
In colonial times, the arrogant British imperial establishment mistakenly thought the key to the military dominance of North America consisted of imperial European armies and alliances with Indian tribes. Ordinary, native born white Americans and their militias were treated with sneering scorn, good only for a hearty laugh before being brushed aside by His Majesty’s imperial redcoats. If the current imperial establishment has any sense of history, they will not repeat Gorge the Third’s folly.

Post your basis for saying the "USSC's decision was on law".

--- They refused to make a decision, or to even give a reason for refusing.

MindBender26 wrote:
Appeals courts at all levels to not explain why they do not take a case

Thus, you admit they have no basis.. -- Thank you.

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.