Friday, September 24, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesNullifying the Constitution - Is This "States' Rights"?

Nullifying the Constitution – Is This “States’ Rights”?

************

IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION …….     

AS most of you know, there is a debate currently going on about the wisdom and the efficacy of moving toward a Constitutional Convention under Article V of the US Constitution. Those in favor say it is necessary in order to stop the federal government from usurping states’ rights and personal liberties. Those opposed say either such a venture will be hijacked by the Statist Progressives or that a better tack is to nullify illegal and unconstitutional federal laws and bureaucratic rules at the state level – hence the term “nullification.”

May we just interject at this point that this discussion is really moot. For we read in the news that states are already nullifying things. In fact, they have skipped right over  nullifying Acts of Congress and are now nullifying the Constitution.

To wit: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has now been nullified in at least two states – California and Connecticut (and we think New York and possibly others). Both states have passed laws going into effect the first of the year requiring the registration of firearms, in the one case long arms and in the other handguns and magazines.

The Second Amendment reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What constitutes an infringement? If you were to exercise your First Amendment right to free speech, but had to “register” your remarks with the government, state or federal, that would constitute an “infringement”, would it not? Anytime those who lord it over you stipulate that you have constitutional rights but institute methods by which to regulate, or tax, or otherwise make you jump through hoops in order to exercise your rights, they are in fact infringing upon, and in many cases engaging in defacto denial of,  those rights. Courts have said so.

nazi gun registration

Here is a heads up and a question for those who look to an Article V convention and it’s various suggested Amendments as a way to ensure constitutional liberties and to bridle “government”: Heed the example of California and Connecticut. What amendment is it that you would propose to keep California and Connecticut from nullifying the US Constitution?

And here is a prediction: Once a sufficient number of highly populated “blue” states have succeeded in conspiring with the Statist Progressive cabal operating out of the power centers across the country, and the world, in nullifying the Constitution in a few key fundamental areas, such as the first few sacred Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the rest of it will be nothing but an unrecognizable collection of words.

Our federal system, as conceived by the Founding Fathers, is a wonderful achievement in the annals of human history .  The Bill of Rights amended to the charter was an equally wonderful supplement and perfecting tool codifying that those natural and God-given rights We The People declared for ourselves were not to be trifled with, by guile, enactment, malfeasance or violation of oath.

It is that trifling that desperately needs to be dealt with.

bobmontgomery
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

6 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

6 COMMENTS

  1. See here is my take my dear Bob, I want the States to have all the RIGHTS because if I don’t like the freaky deaky leftist states I have other states that are in keeping with my morals with the centralized federal government I have no where to go and am a prisoner to their whims!

  2. I’ve always been a fan of defacto nullification of the laws, I haven’t done much reading on it lately, but think that Washington DC and Chicago are in open defiance of the Supreme Court 2nd Amendment ruling that states, cities, etc cannot ban the ownership of guns. And that’s because this justice department won’t enforce it. But I don’t think registration anywhere is a 2nd Amendment violation, I assume, if those states have pushed the envelope too far, the NRA is right on it.

    As for Art V, the operative words I found are “Amendments”, “two-thirds” to call a convention, “proposing” for those amendments, and “three-fourths” for ratification of those amendments, according to how “Congress shall dictate” the mode. Since no one has tried it, and that does seem to be why so many have their panties in a bunch, it seems to be open season on how each of those steps might take place, and how the Left night hijack it. I agree that every bad thing can can be done at one of those conventions will be tried at that convention, but see no evidence short of clairvoyance that any will succeed. The anti-convention types are much too fearful of the Left, who I prefer to see as a paper tiger in these matters. If “the people” really want a convention they will get their convention and not one drawn up for the minority (In state count) Left. So while not necessarily in favor of, neither am I afraid of it.

    Moreover as I have said time and time again, I see absolutely no evidence that the people in charge of trying to organize this convention, such as the inestimable Mark Meckler, who you highlighted last week, could organize a decent church supper. He and others seem to be vainglorious sorts, who want the spotlight to pursue only their own personal ambitions, (maybe a spot on a Fox News panel). People whose only sword is their own ambitions are rarely willing to fall on it. First bad bump in the road and they’ll hightail it. My guess.

    So before I’ll begin to worry, I want to see how close they can come to that first “two-thirds” number, which won’t even begin to be counted until Dec 2014, I expect the American landscape to have completely changed by then.

    • On the registration thing, and Jaded’s options (see below) on that and moral values issues and her right to move to another state – the problem is that option is being limited to her as well, because the feds are forcing states to recognize other states’ laws in matters where the feds have no constitutional authority to do so – i.e., marriage, health, education, housing, et cetera. on the other hand, the feds are refusing to uphold the rights retained by The People. As you note, the High Court has ruled that RKBA is an individual right. What is incredible is that it took 235 years for somebody to get that notion through the system, given all the litigation and legislation that has occured over the last century or so, when it is written in plain text “the People” and not “the States”.
      On the other hand, something that was also plain text like “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment” was pretty well universally understood by professionals and the laity alike until in ’65 or so it got transmogrified into “no prayer allowed” and now to “the Putnam Township School Corporation shall not sponsor a Christmas celebration..”
      If the feds allow California to have medical marijuana laws, that is fine, but the progression, just like in the marriage laws, is that when that medical marijuana user moves to Oklahoma, he will demand his right to smoke dope in Oklahoma and Ted Olson will go to Oklahoma to join the lawsuit granting him his right. The issue to me is not marijuana, because the Constitution doesn’t say anything about “health”, let alone marijuana. The issue is the feds conflating people’s rights with States rights, and we as Constitutional Conservatives shouldn’t do that either. Flyover country ain’t what it used to be because of a lack of literal interpretation, both of the Constitution and the Bible, and so what happens in Vegas doesn’t stay in Vegas.
      I guess my point is that in our zeal to protect States’ rights in those areas reserved to the States where the Constitution has not otherwise declared, we cannot over correct and grant states rights (by ignoring their actions)that are clearly reserved to the people.
      It is an issue of judiciousness.

      • I’ll stand with the 10th Bob. Sorry. The Founders wanted there to be 13 laboratories. I personally don;t care that California or Connecticut have a list of every new gun purchase in those states, because none of mine are on that list. Those people, including the app 30m guns grandfathered in, will have much to say if the law is implemented too enthusiastically. If Bloomberg-deBlasio, Jerry Brown, Connecticut want to strip their citizens of every right they have, and the people let them, serves ’em right. People aren’t leaving CA for nothing.

        • Hooray for the Tenth, and I understand the politics of it (throw the bastards out) and the logistics of it (it’s a big country). What I fret over is the psychology of it (26 million people being conditioned to present arms, even if new) But of course, we already have death panels, so maybe we’re past the tipping point. 🙂

  1. See here is my take my dear Bob, I want the States to have all the RIGHTS because if I don’t like the freaky deaky leftist states I have other states that are in keeping with my morals with the centralized federal government I have no where to go and am a prisoner to their whims!

  2. I’ve always been a fan of defacto nullification of the laws, I haven’t done much reading on it lately, but think that Washington DC and Chicago are in open defiance of the Supreme Court 2nd Amendment ruling that states, cities, etc cannot ban the ownership of guns. And that’s because this justice department won’t enforce it. But I don’t think registration anywhere is a 2nd Amendment violation, I assume, if those states have pushed the envelope too far, the NRA is right on it.

    As for Art V, the operative words I found are “Amendments”, “two-thirds” to call a convention, “proposing” for those amendments, and “three-fourths” for ratification of those amendments, according to how “Congress shall dictate” the mode. Since no one has tried it, and that does seem to be why so many have their panties in a bunch, it seems to be open season on how each of those steps might take place, and how the Left night hijack it. I agree that every bad thing can can be done at one of those conventions will be tried at that convention, but see no evidence short of clairvoyance that any will succeed. The anti-convention types are much too fearful of the Left, who I prefer to see as a paper tiger in these matters. If “the people” really want a convention they will get their convention and not one drawn up for the minority (In state count) Left. So while not necessarily in favor of, neither am I afraid of it.

    Moreover as I have said time and time again, I see absolutely no evidence that the people in charge of trying to organize this convention, such as the inestimable Mark Meckler, who you highlighted last week, could organize a decent church supper. He and others seem to be vainglorious sorts, who want the spotlight to pursue only their own personal ambitions, (maybe a spot on a Fox News panel). People whose only sword is their own ambitions are rarely willing to fall on it. First bad bump in the road and they’ll hightail it. My guess.

    So before I’ll begin to worry, I want to see how close they can come to that first “two-thirds” number, which won’t even begin to be counted until Dec 2014, I expect the American landscape to have completely changed by then.

    • On the registration thing, and Jaded’s options (see below) on that and moral values issues and her right to move to another state – the problem is that option is being limited to her as well, because the feds are forcing states to recognize other states’ laws in matters where the feds have no constitutional authority to do so – i.e., marriage, health, education, housing, et cetera. on the other hand, the feds are refusing to uphold the rights retained by The People. As you note, the High Court has ruled that RKBA is an individual right. What is incredible is that it took 235 years for somebody to get that notion through the system, given all the litigation and legislation that has occured over the last century or so, when it is written in plain text “the People” and not “the States”.
      On the other hand, something that was also plain text like “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment” was pretty well universally understood by professionals and the laity alike until in ’65 or so it got transmogrified into “no prayer allowed” and now to “the Putnam Township School Corporation shall not sponsor a Christmas celebration..”
      If the feds allow California to have medical marijuana laws, that is fine, but the progression, just like in the marriage laws, is that when that medical marijuana user moves to Oklahoma, he will demand his right to smoke dope in Oklahoma and Ted Olson will go to Oklahoma to join the lawsuit granting him his right. The issue to me is not marijuana, because the Constitution doesn’t say anything about “health”, let alone marijuana. The issue is the feds conflating people’s rights with States rights, and we as Constitutional Conservatives shouldn’t do that either. Flyover country ain’t what it used to be because of a lack of literal interpretation, both of the Constitution and the Bible, and so what happens in Vegas doesn’t stay in Vegas.
      I guess my point is that in our zeal to protect States’ rights in those areas reserved to the States where the Constitution has not otherwise declared, we cannot over correct and grant states rights (by ignoring their actions)that are clearly reserved to the people.
      It is an issue of judiciousness.

      • I’ll stand with the 10th Bob. Sorry. The Founders wanted there to be 13 laboratories. I personally don;t care that California or Connecticut have a list of every new gun purchase in those states, because none of mine are on that list. Those people, including the app 30m guns grandfathered in, will have much to say if the law is implemented too enthusiastically. If Bloomberg-deBlasio, Jerry Brown, Connecticut want to strip their citizens of every right they have, and the people let them, serves ’em right. People aren’t leaving CA for nothing.

        • Hooray for the Tenth, and I understand the politics of it (throw the bastards out) and the logistics of it (it’s a big country). What I fret over is the psychology of it (26 million people being conditioned to present arms, even if new) But of course, we already have death panels, so maybe we’re past the tipping point. 🙂

Must Read