Darkwater RetreatSearching far and wide for signs of intelligence.

I had to post this story because it made me laugh.

Smartest President in History Botches Oval Office Rug Quote

Refusing to name the enemy.  Is a dead on article from American Thinker.

When 9/11 did happen I recall writing in a journal, that I’ve kept so that I can share it with my son when he starts to “learn” about 9/11 in school, that I wondered how we were supposed to fight a faceless enemy willing to die for what they believe.

The fact that the PC crowd is taking over all of this and making it appear as though it is not as bad as it was, is frustrating – to say the least.

Read The Case for Impeachment by Tom Tancredo in The Washington Times.  His argument is spot on.  If ever there was a more impeachable offense, I’d have to say it was playing politics and disregarding the rule of law when it comes to immigration and Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution.

Read the following on yahoo this a.m. and opted to share.

The incredible shrinking middle class.  At least that’s what I like to call it.

Well, read this story from American Thinker and you decide.

I received this via email and figured I’d share the information.

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
 
No longer Voluntary
 

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
 
Now 7.65%
 

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
 
No longer tax deductible
 

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
 
Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent
 

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

 
Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put away’ — you may be interested in the following:

———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —-

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— –

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —–

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the  US

———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That’s right!

 
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

———— — ———— ——— —– ———— ——— ———

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

 
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so.

But it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

 
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

Dear President Calderon (& Mexican Senate),

I’m planning to move my family (my wife is currently pregnant) and extended family into Mexico, and I would like to ask you to assist me. We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. Please note that I will be expecting the following:

1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. All Mexican government forms need to also be printed in English.
4. I want my children to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bilingual) teachers.
5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my kids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver’s license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but I don’t plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won’t make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers do not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put U.S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say a critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. Anyone that disagrees with my above listed will be considered a racist.

Thank you, I am sure this can be accomplished easily as America has been doing this for many years!
U.S. citizen and taxpayer

Why Conservatives Love the Founders.

With the passage of SB1070, which isn’t even law in AZ yet, there are several places threatening a boycott of AZ.  Austin has told its government employees that they aren’t “allowed” to travel to AZ.  L.A. has voted to boycott any business with AZ, as has San Francisco.  There are others who have stated the same.

It’s all fun and games until you realize that it’s not SB1070 that’s in violation of the US Constitution, but the actions of certain cities, states and municipalities that is.  Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution states in part, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”  Only Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, as per Article 1 Section 8.

What several in AZ find amusing about CA’s threat to boycott AZ is the little fact that AZ supplies CA with power and water.  So it would stand to reason that if CA is going to truly boycott AZ, they should opt then not to receive their power and water from AZ and find their own resources.

The decision of the L.A. city council to boycott contracts with AZ business is a direct violation of Article 1 Section 10′s clause of, “Law impairing the obligation of contracts”.

It’s all fun and games and feels really good to “do the right thing” until a Constitutional violation lawsuit slaps you in the face.  That would be the mature thing for AZ to do in this situation; as opposed to acting like five year olds in the sand box screaming, “You’re going to boycott me?  Yeah, well, I’m gonna boycott you, too!”

Acceptance and diversity?  That’s not what the pro-illegal immigration crowd really wants.

Read Michelle Malkin’s piece.  Not in the MSM?  Shouldn’t be surprising.

Found this Walter Williams essay to be quite interesting.  Read it here.

I had a discussion with an individual today and thought I would share some advice on Conversation killers.

When you’re discussing something political, each side of the argument has their points to make for or against any given issue.  In proper debate, you listen to the person in whom you’re debating and allow them to list their points.  You acknowledge their points and offer your own in response.  When you’re met with the standard of, “Stop listening to (enter Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck here).”  That will kill any further conversation, at least for me.  Don’t insult my intelligence by alluding to the fact that I am somehow incapable of having an independent, intellectual thought outside of the pundits.  Is this because said person does listen to one of the three people listed and just because I happen to state something in accordance with what they have said, I must, therefore, automatically listen to them?  It’s a cop out and says to me that it is you who is incapable of having an independent thought.

The other conversation ender for me is when you’re going to discuss, say, the healthcare bill with me.  I’ll tell you of something in the bill and you’ll tell me it’s not there.  If I’ve actually taken the time to read the bill and do the research on it to know that the language is in the bill, who are you to tell me it’s not there?  Did you read the bill?  Have you done the research to prove me wrong? 

The last conversation ender for me is when you tell me something is not in the Constitution that I have mentioned is.  When I speak of the powers of Congress to lay and collect taxes for such things as roads and the military and your response to me is that the ONLY thing mentioned in the Constitution about the Militia is the Second Amendment, you obviously have not read the Constitution lately.  But for you to think that the proposed healthcare bill is somehow Constitutional truly shows me your lack of understanding of what the Federal Government’s role truly is.

It’s been reported that at least 65% of Americans are against the Healthcare bill.  Apparently congress doesn’t think that we know anything.  This is what I mean.

Our country is burning and we get this.  Next thing you know there will be a weinie czar to over see it all.

It breaks my heart to see what this country is coming to, knowing where we had once been.  Where we once stood as a beacon of hope, prosperity, and freedom.  We were proud, we were independant, most of all, we were united as a country.  I’m not sure exactly when the lines became drawn between political views, but from where I stand, I see socialism coming because as a people we have been expecting more, we have felt that we were entitled to more, and more, and more.  We vote for what we as an individual can get, and not what we can work for.  We have become spoiled in our excesses, we have become selfish in our wants and have forgotten the basics that made this country great.  What made us great?  Hard work, responsibility for our own actions, our own sweat and tears, pride in our country, pride in our communities, pride in our families.  We have gotten lost somewhere, selfish, out of touch.  There is no personal accountibility anymore…we screw up and we can blame our homelife, our race, our neighbor…Bush.  How sad have we become that we can’t even see the forest for the trees?  That forest is our country where our freedoms are…the trees our each of our own pet ‘pork’ projects, our own wants, our own greed.  We lost sight of working to accomplish great things as individuals, we became lazy, we became selfish, we felt entitled.  When did that happen, and why?  Government can’t help us, they are the biggest little piggies in wanting their special pet ‘pork’ paid for.

I don’t know about you, but I know that I want back the country that our forefathers fought a revolution for.  I want that freedom that we had.  I want the country that they intended.  I mean, they fought a war to get away from the high taxes that England placed on them and where are we?  Between capital gains, property, estate, payroll, social security, and the numerous other taxes we pay, I’d say we pay more than our fair share.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”  Ronald Reagan

I’ve been doing some thinking lately.  Don’t be shocked, I do it quite often.  For those not in the “know,” I’m a deeply analytical person…  Sometimes too analytical for my own good (analyzing things to the point that I’ve destroyed relationships).  I want to hear both sides of any argument, convince me why you think ‘A’ is better than my thinking ‘B’ is a good thing.  It should be noted, however, that convincing me that what you think is better does not mean that you insult me, call me names, belittle me, or tell me that I’m too stupid to understand things.  I like to educate myself on things, and if I’m not familiar with the subject of a blog I may be reading, I’m not going to comment on said topic and I’m certainly not going to pen my own blog about it.  I like to have my facts in order before I present things that I find interesting.  Just because I may think differently than you do, does not make me wrong, nor does it make me stupid.  What it makes me, is individual.  I like to learn new things, and in that learning comes gaining the perspectives of people who disagree with me.

It gets exhausting to continue to argue the same things over and over again, and truth be told, we’re all a part of the problem and not part of the solution.  Honestly, in the grand reality of things, we’re but small fish in a HUGE pond who are unable to “swim” in the same direction because we all think that the direction we are swimming is “right.”  Instead of agreeing to disagree, meeting in the middle, and even remotely attempting to get along, we seperate into different “schools” and swim with those that think exactly like we do.  Or, some of us “swim” somewhere in between, not because we lack an opinion of our own, but because we can see both sides of any argument and come away with our own opinions.  Sometimes we swim with one crowd, and soon we’re with the other; depends on the issue at hand.

This all stems from a conversation that I had with with a friend of mine.  She was in college majoring in economics, and had a speech class that semester.  She asked if I had speech when I was in college, and I did.  She had to give a persuasive argument on debate and why there seems to be a lack of it.  She was using some article written to state that the reason there is no debate is due to the fact that everyone is “too nice.”  Obviously said author has never visited a political blog.  Honestly, if the author thinks that the art of debate has been lost because we’re “too nice,” she should get out more.  We’re a passionate group of individuals on any given subject, and we’re clearly lacking in the “nice” department when we are discussing something which we are passionate about.

I don’t think it’s a matter of being “too nice,” it’s a matter of the inability of people, in general, to not listen and give creadence to another’s point of view.  I realize that there is some fairly skewed logic in the way each individual sees things in the world, but does that make them wrong?  I also realize that there is a complete lack of logic in some arguments made by people for or against whatever their blog may be about – which I find really quite hysterical.  That aside, I truly believe that the art of debate has been lost by our inability to listen to another point of view without taking what they say as a personal attack, or by going on the attack ourselves.  Sometimes there are blantant attacks made at us by someone who disagrees, but what is that solving?  I’ve never known an argument that got solved by instigating a shouting match and resorting to personal attacks and name calling.  That just leaves us with anger, frustration, and no solution.

I rarely agree on anything politically with some of my closest friends, we see the world differently and for different reasons.  Does that make either of us wrong in how we see things?  I don’t think so. 

My dearest friend and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but we have this uncanny ability to sit and actually listen to what the other one is saying about why we think like we do.  We agree on NCLB, that’s a given…  I’m not aware of too many people who fully understand the program that are fans of it.  She is a very intelligent woman, and while we don’t always agree on things, we’ve managed to have a solid 20+ year friendship because we respect each other.  That’s the big thing right there, respect.  Doesn’t mean that we have to agree one way or the other on any given issue under the sun, but it does mean that we take the time to actually listen to what the other person is saying about their side of the argument.

I find it odd, and quite sad, that when we share our thoughts on a given subject, there are many out there who would come and comment, typically just insulting a reader, or the writer, but they have nothing of any value to add to the topic of the blog at hand.   If you have an opinion on the topic of whatever the blog happens to be about, state it clearly – whether you agree with the writer or not.  Don’t get your knickers in a knot if you’re questioned about your point of view by either the writer or another reader, be an adult and present your case in a manner which shows that you do have the capacity to have an intelligent, informed discussion without resorting to insulting someone or everyone with one word.  That never solved anything…  See my point on that above!  If you’re unable to control yourself, then perhaps you need to sit at the kiddies table while the adults are speaking.  Just sayin…

I say all of this because, well, if we were to give a bit more respect to each other and actually listen as well as we speak on issues, we might walk away learning something we hadn’t thought of before.  Doesn’t mean that our logic was flawed, or even incorrect, it simply means that we were able to listen to what someone else with a different point of view thought, and perhaps we can factor that into our own view of the subject.  Regardless of the outcome of our stance on the issue, we’ve at least added some education from someone on the opposite side of the topic.

Understading that it’s sometimes difficult to wrap your brain around another’s persepective and logic, doesn’t mean that someone that thinks differently from you is somehow “stupid.”  We’ve all been guilty of anger in a heated debate, don’t get me wrong…  It ends up with the typical “loony liberal,” “neocon,” “rightie-too-tightie” expressions we’re all familiar with. 

Perhaps, and just maybe, if we could all actually take the time to give what we expect in return (ie. respect, and understanding) it could actually go a long way in helping to repair what has been torn in the arena of debate.  I believe it starts with us “small fish,” because if we can all learn to “swim together” with differing opinions on things it would go a long way in showing the “bigger fish” how it’s done.  We’re never going to completely agree on everything…  Ever, that’s just human nature; but if we could practice the art of agreeing to disagree…

Listen as well as you speak.  There are two sides…  or more…  to every story.  Just a thought.

I find it ironic that all the things that are supposed to be “greener” tend to be more dangerous.  Those fancy lightbulbs that everyone is supposed to be using because it’s more energy-efficient?  Yeah, they’re loaded with mercury and should one be broken in your home, well…..you know what mercury can do to you.

Those new “green” cleaners and laundry detergents?  They don’t clean as well and some have reported that their clothes don’t smell clean.

Now we have some energy-efficient traffic lights causing problems around the country.  Seems that these lights can’t melt the snow.  The reason for their inability to melt the snow, they don’t burn as hot as traditional incandescent bulbs.  All that energy saving that’s going on is blamed for dozens of accidents and at least one death.

In a strage twist of the ironic:  “Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming.”  If it’s true that we’re all going to perish in a giant ball of fire, then could someone please explain all this snow in Copenhagen to me?  Or the record lows that some of the country is presently experencing?

Just to throw this one out there…..I think that Al Gore has used H.A.A.R.P. to his advantage to perpetuate the global warming myth.

Obama’s new stimulus.

 ”While Obama did not propose the kind of direct federal public works jobs that were created in the 1930s, he said government action could set the stage for more job creation by private business.”

 Let’s look at the Great Depression for a quick history review.  The stock market crashed on Black Tuesday (October 29, 1929).  Unemployment was in the double digits.  It is also said that any recovery efforts due to monetary factors were slowed by the poor management of the nation’s money by the Federal Reserve.  Others believed that the economy should have turned around and back to normal after four years, but there was a lack of downward flexibility in prices and wages – encouraged by the Roosevelt Administration policies, such as the National Industrial Recovery Act.  There are economists that have brought attention to the expectations of reflation and the raise of nominal interest rates that Roosevelt’s words and actions indicated.

 We start with the first recovery efforts put into place by President Herbert Hoover – which failed to reverse the downward spiral we were in.

 First there was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was set up with the intention of raising tariffs on imported items to encourage the purchase of American-made products.  This backfired as other nations followed America’s lead and raised the prices of American-made goods in retaliation.  Many American’s were homeless.  Hoover then approved the Federal Home Loan Bank Act.  This act was to encourage new home construction and to reduce foreclosures.  His final attempt at government infusion was to stimulate the economy by passing the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, these also included funds for public works programs by creating the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC).  The first goal of the RFC was to provide government-secured loans to financial institutions, railroads and farmers.  The economy went down further and further each quarter as prices, profits and employment fell.

Enter Roosevelt, who was inaugurated in 1933.  By 1933 the unemployment hit an all time high at 25%.  We are all aware of the New Deal programs put into place by the Roosevelt Administration.  Though intended for relief to the impoverished through increased government spending, we ended up with programs that, like most government programs, never went away when their goals were met.

One of the earlier changes by the Roosevelt administration:

Institution regulations to fight deflationary “cut-throat competition” with the National Recovery Administration (which is still a controversial act and included a number of changes to the American economy that were deemed unconstitutional in 1935).

He encouraged unions to raise wages to increase the purchasing power of the working class.

He cut the farm production to raise prices through the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

He forced business to work with the government to set price codes through the National Recovery Administration.

Another thing the Roosevelt Administration did was to attempt to balance the federal budged by cutting spending and increasing taxes.  This caused a downturn in the American economy that lasted an additional 13 months as industrial production fell almost 30%.

By 1938, retail sales began to go up, employment improved, industrial production turned up.  It was at that time that Conservatives were able to form a bipartisan conservative coalition to stop further expansions of the New Deal.  When unemployment dropped to 2%, a few of the programs instituted by the Roosevelt Administration were abolished.

I feel a little ill, considering there are so many in DC that think they need to take care of us because, clearly, we’re too ill equipped ourselves to do so.  That’s not to say that we don’t have our fair share of idiots in this country, but it’s not the government’s job to play parent to all of us.  You know, that just further proves my point that government is the problem.  You would think that if they perhaps got their nasty little paws out of everything and quit raising taxes on those of us who do work for a living to pay for those who will not (not to be confused with those who can not), then perhaps we all would do much better without having to suckle the government teat.

Sadly, that’s not the case and this country will continue on their “Toot Toot” train to socialism.

There are people among us who think they know the Constitution, but seriously lack that knowledge.  They seem to think that states have no rights to make laws – yes, because they are “Unconstitutional”.  It would seem as though they completely glossed over the Separation of Powers clause and the Tenth Amendment of the very document they claim to know so much about.

Yes, Virginia, the states DO have the ‘right’ to create their own laws.  They truly do!  It’s right in….wait for it…the CONSTITUTION!  Really, it’s there…it’s known as Federalism.  Federalism can be defined as a division of governmental powers between a central government and the states.

Now for a brief history lesson.  The framers of the Constitution had familiarity with various forms of government.  While still under Great Britain, the original colonies experienced a unitary type of government.  While they enjoyed a great deal of autonomy, they were constantly reminded that they were, in fact, colonies.  When the British government attempted to exert greater control over the colonies following the French/Indian war, the framers learned the drawbacks of a unitary form of government.  The Parliament was far too remote to understand the needs of the colonists as they were separated by three thousand miles of ocean.

This was the inspiration of the Articles of Confederation.  Now, under these Articles the colonies were now states, but were not much happier than when they were colonies.  It is true that as sovereign states they enjoyed complete autonomy and independence.  As colonies they each faced a common enemy in Great Britain, but suppressed their differences.  After the Revolution ended, the differences began to surface.  Slavery was being instituted and was beginning to divide the North and the South.  Trade and currency also caused problems.  As Shay’s Rebellion proved, the national government was one in name only.  Many observers realized the nation was in danger of splintering into thirteen separate nations.

In May of 1787, the framers of the Constitution faced a dilemma.  Some states had already existed for more then 100 years; it would be inconceivable to expect them to surrender their own governmental powers to one omnipotent central government.  It was also conversely clear that the National Government would need to be strengthened if the United States were to survive.

The solution?  The framers created what is now known as a federal form of government.  Under this form of government, the states would surrender SOME of their governmental powers to a national government; other governmental powers would be exercised as they always had been, by the individual states.  Reconciling existing states and a need for a stronger national government resulted in American federalism.

The framers genius was to formulate federalism and set it in motion.  Even for all their wisdom, they could not foresee every contingency.  They created a blueprint for American government and a mere shadow of what would follow.  It was up to future generations to define federalism, each generation would leave its mark on federalism and pass it on to the next.  One generation’s fate to define federalism was by means of Civil War.

Federalism is a learning and evolving process.  Adjustments need to be made, compromises need to be negotiated, accommodations must be worked out until there is finally comfort between both parties.  That comfort is not reached without conflict.

States never dreamed that by ratifying the Constitution they had forfeited their right of sovereignty, but Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) was shown, by the Supreme Court, that a citizen of one state could sue another.  This decision was almost immediately overturned by the passage of the Eleventh Amendment.  This, however, illustrates the uncertainty the new order of federalism created.  As new situations arose, different clauses needed to be interpreted for the first time.  The Supreme Courts early decisions were especially important as they set a precedent upon which later decisions were based.  The powers of the national government have been the major focus of the Supreme Court since the ratification of the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 10 states: “No state shall enter into any Treaty, alliance, or Confederation; grant letters of marquee and Reprisal; coin money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but Gold and silver coin a tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any Imports or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State or Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision of Control of the Congress.

No state shall, without consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in Time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of Delay.”

The proper balance of power between the national government and the states is never-ending in its debate.

So long as state laws do not attempt to over-rule a Constitutional Amendment, there is no reason they can not establish their own laws.  This comes under the Tenth Amendment: “Reserved Powers of the States.  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Unless a state attempts to violate a Constitutional Law, it is absolutely Constitutional for them to create a law.  Example; there is no federal law that says we can’t carry guns, so any gun control laws in the states is in direct violation of the Second Amendment, and therefore, Unconstitutional.

Let’s discuss the second amendment, shall we?

“Amendment 2 – Militia and the Right to Bear Arms.

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.”

Okay, so we are to have a “well regulated Militia” as a necessity of securing our freedoms as a ‘state’, or in our case, a union.  This requires that at times in defense of attacks on our nation, we must send our brave men and women of the militia to defend the rights we hold so dear.  I would prefer there not to be wars, but the simple fact is, at times it is necessary to protect our ‘state’.  Whining about the present war is not going to do anything except allow you the first amendment right to do so.  In practicing that right, you need to remember that it was a soldier who fought, bled, and possibly died in order for you to maintain that right you hold so dear.

While we are at it, it’s also that same soldier who allowed you the right to have your protests where you have your ‘freedom of speech’.  Those same protests that belittle and bemoan our bravest for doing the job that they opted to do.  They are not the poorest or dumbest who serve our country, they are quite intelligent.  One of my dear friends is going on 22 years in the Navy, why?  Because that’s where he wants to be.  He is not a stupid man by any  stretch, he’s quite intelligent.  My husband served his country for six years in the Marine Corps and has recently reinlisted into the USMC Reserves.  My husband is not a stupid man, he joined because of what he could further gain in knowledge.  The fact that joining the Marines also got him the hell out of Evanston, Wyoming was an added bonus.

Bottom line, freedom is not free.  Yes, I know, spoken like a neo-con I suppose.  Would it shock you to know that I don’t subscribe to either party or movement?  I’m educated, I’m analytical and I will search for the best candidate as well as search for the truth of a policy that is to be put before us.  At times I may lean more conservative, there are issues where I may have a liberal leaning, but knowing exactly who and what I am voting for is the most important thing to me.  I’m given the right to research and gain further knowledge because of our Military.  They have served to preserve my right to locate  information for or against anything the government decides to do, or not to do. (That is the question)

So, the next time you are out protesting the war and our soldiers who fight, be sure to thank them for that right before you call them such vicious names.  Please spare me the argument of how you support the troops but not the war, because, honestly, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.  Support for our troops goes hand in hand, in war or in peace.  We can’t always have peace (unless you live in an alternate universe where everyone gets along and is blissfully happy.)  There will always be someone who disagrees with you, at times agreeing to disagree works.  That lasts until an attack comes, then the whole agreeing to disagree goes out the window.  I don’t think that they would be willing to sit down and have a civil chat with you to resolve the issue.  I honestly think that if you had a sit down conversation with them, they would think you were quite defenseless (or spineless), thus giving them further incentive to attack you.

I digress.

The concept of a universal militia originated in England. The requirement that subjects bear arms, and serve military duty, dates back to at least the 12th century under King Henry II who wanted all freemen to bear arms for public defense. At that time, it was customary for a soldier to purchase, maintain, and bring their own armor and weapons for military service. This was so important that Crown officials gave periodic inspections to insure a properly armed militia. This is how it remained, relatively unchanged, until 1671, when Parliament introduced a statute that raised the property qualifications in order to possess firearms. Basically, this statute disarmed all freemen but the very wealthy. In 1686, King James II banned the Protestants’ ability to possess firearms, even though Protestants constituted over 95% of the subjects. It was not until 1689, under the rise of William of Orange, that the Protestants were able possess firearms once again under a newly enacted law that read, “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law”. The tradition of securing a military force through a duty of universal military obligation for all able-bodied males follows from the Elizabethan era militia in England.

Under “The English Declaration of Rights (1689)” the freedom for Protestants to “have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” was affirmed. So, when the Colonists protested Britian’s efforts to disarm their own militias in the early phases of the Revolution, they cited this Declaration, Blackstone’s summary of the Declaration, their own militia laws, and Common Law rights to self-defense. British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent a coordinated action by the militia, yet there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense. In his arguments on behalf of British troops lost in the Boston Massacre, John Adams invoked the common law of self-defense.

A decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed; the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation. The confederation was thought to have several weaknesses, one of which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays’ Rebellion.  So, in 1787 the Philadelphia Convention was convened to address these weaknesses.  At the conclusion of the convention came a proposed Constitution.  Those who debated ratification to the Constitution divided into the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist.  Federalists supported the ratification and the Anti-Federalists opposed it.  The Anti-Federalists feared a creation of a standing army not under civilian control that may eventually endanger democracy and the civil liberties which had happened in the American Colonies and Europe.  While they were unsuccessful in blocking the ratification, the Massachusetts Compromise laid the groundwork to ensure that a Bill of Rights be drafted, and this would provide Constitutional guarantees against encroachment by the government of certain rights.  The Federalists, however; felt that a Bill of Rights was not necessary since the Federal Government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overpower a militia.  As Leading Federalist James Madison wrote:

“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.  To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

Or as Federalist Noah Webster penned:

“Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.”

An example given by Webster of a power that the people were able to resist was that of a standing army:

“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

This controversy of a standing army for the newly formed United States existed in the context of Continental Forces that had won the American Revolutionary War – consisting of both the standing Continental Army of the Continental Congress, and of State and Militia Units.  The British forces were a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist Militia, and Hessian mercenaries.

Federalist Alexander Hamilton wrote on the belief that the federal government must be trusted and that the army and militias “ought certainly to be under the regulation and the disposal” of the federal government.  “The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.”

Because the positions were so varied between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, reaching a compromise was not easy.  Regardless, a compromise was made and the result was the Second Amendment.

So, this is a bit of history as to how the Second Amendment actually came about.  I’m sure that we can all agree that the necessity of a standing Military is a good thing for our country.  Now, let’s get to the second part of this Amendment, which seems to be a much heated debate – and has been for quite sometime.

What does it mean, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”  Is it to mean that the people of the Military are to keep and bear arms only, or is it intended to mean that the people of the body politic are allowed this right.  It’s a great debate, to be sure.  Even the US Supreme Court seems to be confused on this debate.  In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)  the Court stated, “‘the people’ seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words “person” and “accused” used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that “the people” refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”  That, however; differs from an earlier noted case by the Supreme Court in 1886.  Presser v. Illinois was before the high court.  Presser made the attempt to link the Second Amendment to being a privilege of the citizens of the United States.  The attempt was found lacking as the Supreme Court stated, “The plaintiff in error [Presser] next insists that the sections of the Military Code of Illinois under which he was indicted are an invasion of that clause of the first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States which declares: ‘No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”  Also stated, “The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these [Second Amendment] rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States…”

Some say the Second Amendment is a derivative of the common law right to keep and bear arms. Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, wrote in the North Carolina Law Review in March 1997, Page 781, and stated “… Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment—the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions.”

Others see a distinction between the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense. Robert Spitzer stated: “…the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law.” In a similar argument, Heyman stated that the common law right of self defense was legally distinct from the right to bear arms.”

The potential connection between the right of self defense and the new constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment relies on the distinction as to whether ‘keep and bear arms’ is synonymous more broadly with the right of individual self defense or does ‘keep and bear arms’ pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context; or in the case of the Common Law while still under the British? The distinction was not subjected to serious judicial notice until the first gun control laws were passed in the Jackson era.  Judges in the nineteenth century were split over how to interpret this connection; some saw the Common Law right and the protection of a right to keep and bear arms as identical; others viewed them as being legally distinct. Early texts from the era of the Second Amendment are silent on this important question.

A book written in 1833 by Justice Joseph Story contains early commentaries on the Second Amendment.  Justice Story viewed the original meaning of the Amendment “as a concession to moderate Anti-Federalists who feared federal control over the militia.”  In section 1202 of his book he states, “It is difficult fully to comprehend the influence of such objections, urged with much apparent sincerity and earnestness at such an eventful period. The answers then given seem to have been in their structure and reasoning satisfactory and conclusive. But the amendments proposed to the constitution (some of which have been since adopted) show, that the objections were extensively felt, and sedulously cherished. The power of congress over the militia (it was urged) was limited, and concurrent with that of the states. The right of governing them was confined to the single case of their being in the actual service of the United States, in some of the cases pointed out in the constitution. It was then, and then only, that they could be subjected by the general government to martial law. If congress did not choose to arm, organize, or discipline the militia, there would be an inherent right in the states to do it. All, that the Constitution intended, was, to give a power to congress to ensure uniformity, and thereby efficiency. But, if congress refused, or neglected to perform the duty, the states had a perfect concurrent right, and might act upon it to the utmost extent of sovereignty. As little pretence was there to say, that congress possessed the exclusive power to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Their power was merely competent to reach these objects; but did not, and could not, in regard to the militia, supersede the ordinary rights of the states. It was, indeed, made a duty of congress to provide for such cases; but this did not exclude the cooperation of the states. The idea of congress inflicting severe and ignominious punishments upon the militia in times of peace was absurd. It presupposed, that the representatives had an interest, and would intentionally take measures to oppress them, and alienate their affections.  The appointment of the officers of the militia was exclusively in the states; and how could it be presumed, that such men would ever consent to the destruction of the rights or privileges of their fellow-citizens. The power to discipline and train the militia, except when in the actual service of the United States, was also exclusively vested in the states; and under such circumstances, it was secure against any serious abuses. It was added, that any project of disciplining the whole militia of the United States would be so utterly impracticable and mischievous, that it would probably never be attempted.  The most, that could be done, would be to organize and discipline select corps; and these for all general purposes, either of the states, or of the Union, would be found to combine all, that was useful or desirable in militia services.”

In Amyette v. State,(1840) the Tennessee Supreme Court stated that the term “bear arms”, “has a military sense, and no other” and further stated “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”  In other words, this early case seem to be saying that you have the right to bear arms if you are in the military, or if you are a hunter.  Interesting.

“Keep” has also been subject to scrutiny. In Parker v. District of Columbia, the court analyzed the two different interpretations, one claiming “keep” meant to upkeep the weapons, and another claiming “keep” meant personal retention.  From the opinion: “Turning again to Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary , we see the first three definitions of keep are “to retain; not to lose,” “to have custody,” “to preserve; not to let go.” Johnson, supra, at 540. We think “keep” is a straightforward term that implies ownership or possession of a functional weapon by an individual for private use.”  This was reviewed under another case, “The Brady Center, an advocate for gun control, has stated: “No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.” (This recently changed with the Parker v. District decision.) Also, “… the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia.” These statements, however, predate the above-referenced D.C. Circuit case which struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. While United States v. Miller was a Supreme Court case, Parker v. District of Columbia pertained only to the District of Columbia, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court granting certiorari in the Parker case under the name District of Columbia v. Heller.”

Important case law

United States v. Miller is the Supreme Court’s fullest discussion of the Second Amendment. Miller is used by both sides in American gun politics as supporting their position. In Miller, the court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons, ruling that “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”  The ruling also discusses the historical meaning of “militia”.

United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court ruled that because “[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…”, the federal government may not punish individuals for depriving citizens of their right to bear arms. The courts did not recognize the doctrine of incorporation at this point in the 19th century. Though many of the federal rights delineated in the federal Bill of Rights have subsequently been incorporated by the Court as states rights, the Court has not done so for the Second Amendment.

Presser v. Illinois is one of only two post-Civil War 19th Century U.S. Supreme Court cases to address the Second Amendment, the other one being U.S. v. Cruikshank.  The traditional reading of Presser is that it affirms the view articulated in Cruikshank that the right is a limitation on the powers of the federal government. Modern supporters of the individual rights view have challenged this claim, viewing the case as affirming a right to keep and bear arms as a necessary condition to have a universal militia.

Other cases of note See also: Firearm court cases
The case of Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990) concerned the training of the state militia, and a dispute between the state governor of Minnesota and the Department of Defense over whose authority was plenary in doing so. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution reserves the training of the militia to the states according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, but also gives Congress the power to raise and support armies for a period not exceeding two years for a given appropriation. The National Guard was recognized as both the state militia under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (and the Second Amendment) as well as the reserve force of the Army at the same time. The dispute arose over whether the Guard’s role as the militia excludes them from being a part of the Army as well, and gives the states the power to refuse to allow them to be called up into their role as the Army’s reserve and trained outside of their home state, under the reservation of the militia’s training to the states. The Court held that Article I, Section 8′s additional grant of power to provide for the calling of the militia into the federal service may be combined with their power to raise and support armies all at once, and hence the National Guard has no immunity from being trained as part of the Army; the power to call up the militia is not excluded as being separate from the army powers, and is simply an additional grant of power. This case is significant for Second Amendment case law in that it recognizes that the National Guard is one modern form of the militia under federal law.

Now, if you’ve actually made it through this long post, I would welcome your comments, facts, thoughts as to this Amendment.  I would specifically like to here your interpretation of the second part of this Amendment as it pertains to the right of the ‘people’ to ‘keep and bear arms’.

The Constitution was written with certain checks and balances to avoid one branch of government taking too much power.  So, let us discuss how these seperate powers are to work.

Article I – The Legislative Article (to enact the law)

The Legislative Branch is made up of the Congress.  “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”  The powers of the Congress are set forth in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, which reads in part, “…shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excise, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence…borrow Money on the Credit of the United States…regulate Commerce…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..coin Money…provide for the Punishment of counterfieting…establish Post Offices and post Roads…promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts…constitute Tribunals…define and punish Piracies and Felonies…declare war…raise and support Armies…provide and maintain a Navy…make Rules for Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces…provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union…provoide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases…make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper…”  These are to be the powers of the Congress, the Legislative Branch of our government.

A “Nondelegation doctrine” was put in place to hold the principle that the Congress, being vested with all legislative powers under Article I, Section 1 of Constitution, may not delegate that power to anyone else.  A delegation of some of that authority is exercised as an “implied power” of Congress, which has been ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court, so long as an “intelligible principle” is in place by the Congress to guide the Executive Branch.  “Congress has the exclusive power to legislate, to make laws and in addition to the enumerated powers it has all other powers vested in the government by the Constitution.”  Examples of those under “implied power” are the Food and Drug Administration and the Internal Revenue Service.  Each of them is acting on only what powers the Congress has given them.  The IRS, for example, is to collect the taxes that the Congress has deemed just to collect.

In short, the Legislative Branch creates the laws. “Legislation differs from a unilateral congressional veto in that the latter is not presented to the President for his approval.”

Article II – The Executive Article (to enforce the law)

The Executive Power belongs to the President of the United States of America.  Under the Powers of the President we find, “…be the Commander of Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States…by and with the Adivce and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”  In “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” the Constitution does not require the President to enforce the law, officers subordinate to the President may perform them.  By empowering him under the Constituion to ensure the faithful execution of the laws also permits the President to terminate the appointment of an executive officer.  The Congres itself may not terminate said appointments but through impeachment, or to restrict the President’s power to do the same.  The President’s control does not extend past the Executive Branch.  The Congress also may not unilaterally restrain any executive officials in the performance of their said duties.  There is a difference between legislation and a unilateral congressional veto being that a congressional veto is not presented to the President for his approval while all legislation is.

Article III – The Judicial Article (to intrepret the law)

This powers is vested in one Supreme Court and other such inferior Courts as the Congress may ordain and establish from time to time.  The Jurisdiction of the Court, “…shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…”  The Judicial branch is to have all trials by jury, execpt for Cases of Impeachment.  “the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office for life and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court’s judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called “constitutional courts.”

Congress may create “[L]egislative courts, which frequently take the form of quasi-judicial agencies or commissions whose members do not have the same security of tenure or compensation as the constitutional court judges. Legislative courts may not exercise the judicial power of the United States.
”
Now we visit the Tenth Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  The only powers denied to the states are found in Article I Section 10 of the Constitution.  States may not enter into treaties, alliances, or confedertions.  Nor can they grant letters of marque or reprisal, coin money, emit bills of credit…basically, they are not at liberty to do what the US Congress was set up to do.  Each state may set it’s own drinking laws, driving laws, abortion laws, etc.  Laws not set up by the Congress are thereby remanded to the states to determine what is best for it’s populace.

I had to bring up the Tenth Amendment and the Seperation of Powers in this because according to some, what the Supreme Court rules in actually Federal Law.  Some need an education in how the Constitution actually reads.  While we have several judges who seem to legislate from the bench in today’s day and age, a law it does not make – not according to the Constitution.  So, who exactly is holding these judges accountable?  The Congress is supposed to keep them in check, but that does not appear to be happening, or is it and we just don’t know about it?