Wrong on Rights

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 19 December 2002 | Debra J. Saunders

[45Auto]

Sauders is the token sort-of conservative at the Chronicle. She is not always dead-right, but she is entertaining in a city of almost pure Socialist delusion. She has made some fundamental mistakes in her analysis of the RKBA, but an article like this in the Chron is unusual.

[TigersEye]

It will be interesting to see what the USSC does with this if indeed they see the case.

[Noumenon]

No problemo - we'll settle this and many other questions in the next American Civil War.

[vannrox]

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

---

[This is a note to me from Dr. Linda Thompson of the American Justice Federation that I am passing along to everyone...email me with your comments ken]

[to ken]
You left off the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution and if it didn't, the amendments were rights of the people the government couldn't screw with.
Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!!
Here's a copy!!!

---

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

---

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.

End the deception.

Return to Know Your Rights
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/lindat.html

[unixfox]

I think it would be prudent to say that, it is our duty as citizens and our collective right to tar and feather this traitor of a judge. Then, throw him to the buzzards.

[headsonpikes]

I'm happy to note that acerbity is not a lost virtue. ;^)

[headsonpikes]

"...best insure the beneficent ends..." bttt!

[Maelstrom]

The fundamental and most noteable flaw is what happens when there actually is a "knock-down no-holds barred fight" with respect to this particular individual right.

[Maelstrom]

Please give me a good cite proving the existance of this historical oddity.

[wku man]

You betcha!

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[RKV]

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/preamble.html

[pabianice]

I can't argue against the result of Reinhardt's ruling -- a 3-O decision that California's assault-weapons ban is constitutional. As California Deputy Attorney General Tim Rieger noted, gun ownership can be seen as an individual right and still be subject to restriction in the interest of public safety. That's why your next-door neighbor doesn't own an atomic bomb.

Of course there are several other small problems in owning an atomic bomb, like the $ 200 billion it costs to make one from scratch; the lack of fissable material; the stink your neighbors would make when you open your own foundry and chemical plant in their back yards; etc.

[MtnScout]

Well.

Dang.

I just looked at my most handy copy. A 1998 copyright pocket edition from CATO. I thought they had left this out as well, because the last line trails off at ",pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution..."[p.42]

On p.41 I figured out this post (or the email) had edited the preamble a bit, and it's out of order from the original.

============================

(emphasis added, though not needed)

THE conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution:

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution; viz..

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitiution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several states, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution...

FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG
Speaker of the House of Representatives

JOHN ADAMS
Vice-President of the United States,
President of the Senate

=============================

[p.41-42 / "The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America", as printed by the CATO Institute c.1998 ISBN 1-882577-67-1]

[vannrox]

.





"...Please give me a good cite proving the existance of this historical oddity...."

...
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is an independent federal agency that preserves our nation's history and defines us as a people by overseeing the management of all federal records.

Enshrined for posterity in the original building in Washington, DC, are the cornerstone documents of our government, the Charters of Freedom: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights.

But the National Archives and Records Administration is more than famous documents. NARA is a public trust upon which our democracy depends. NARA enables people to inspect for themselves the record of what government has done. NARA enables officials and agencies to review their actions and helps citizens hold them accountable for those actions. And NARA ensures continuing access to essential evidence that documents the rights of American citizens, the actions of federal officials, and the national experience.







.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[Atlas Sneezed]

"But as Eastman noted, in striking the exemption, Reinhardt essentially wrote a new law: "He's now making it criminal for retired peace officers to possess assault weapons, even though the legislation said it was legal." "

Interesting point. Instead of upholding the prohibition on cops, the court should have tossed the unconstitutional law and let the legislature fix it.

[Shooter 2.5]

If the USSC does rule on it, I would expect them to mirror what the author said. We have a individual Right but it will only allow us to have registered single shot .22's.

[TigersEye]

Perhaps. Should the USSC ever clearly rule that there isn't an individual right to KABA's I think that would be clear enough to me that the Republic is history. I wouldn't be able to consider myself a citizen of a nation I no longer considered to exist.

[William Tell]

From the article: "...gun ownership can be seen as an individual right and still be subject to restriction in the interest of public safety. That's why your next-door neighbor doesn't own an atomic bomb. "

Nonsense. If the Founders of our nation knew about atomic bombs, they could have amended the Constitution. We can do the same. "Weapons of mass destruction", assuming that anyone agrees to a definition, are also "arms".

[Maelstrom]

PERFECT