Gallery

LESSONS IN LOGIC: This Story Is An Admission That The Rule Of Law In America Is Dead

The rule of law is based on a strict adherence to a set of known laws, the purpose of which is usually explained by those who created the law.  A central tenant of the rule of law is that the law applies equally to all people, and that no one is to be above the law.  In short: people are to be governed by the law, not the other way around.  However, in America today, the rule of law is dead.  Today, we live under the rule of men, and that means that ;the law’ is whatever they say it is on any given day, or worse, according to who you are and to what group(s) you belong at any given time.  If you doubt this, I would draw your attention to this story:

Chelsea Clinton: With Scalia Gone, Gun Control an Opportunity on Supreme Court

OK, let’s apply a little logic to this story to see what it really tells us.

First, the inference here is that the Supreme Court decides what is and is not Constitutional.  This is not true!  The Constitution (and the men who wrote it) states that the three branches of government are equal.  This means they are equal in their authority to determine what is and is not Constitutional.

Second, this story also infers that the Supreme Court can write law by simply making a ruling or decree contrary to everything that has come before.  Once again, when we look to the understanding of the men who wrote it, the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual, and it applies to all weapons — not just firearms.  That this is true is recorded in the Congressional record and available to anyone who would bother to look into this issue.  This is the understanding that has been upheld by every ruling for more than 240 years.  So, to imply that the Supreme Court can now reverse this with a simple ruling is an admission that the Supreme Court is no longer operating within its proper authority.  It is rogue, and outside its proper role, which makes it lawless.

The Supreme Court cannot make law.  If it hands down a ruling that has this effect, that ruling is lawless.  Under the rule of law, lawless acts are not and can never be or carry the weight of law.  So to suggest that an individual right can be removed by a majority vote of the Supreme Court is an admission that the Supreme Court is no longer legitimate.  It has ceased to act as a judicial body and become a political organ that operate by the rule of ‘might-makes-right,’ the power of which falls to the majority political faction on the court.  And that, dear reader, is — by definition — the rule of man!

The Constitution outlines the procedure for changing it.  If you wish to change the Constitution, you must amend it, either through the Congressional or State Convention process. The Supreme Court is charged with upholding the the original intention of our laws according to the outline of the original intention of Constitution.  These intentions are knowable.  This is why we keep records.  So, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, we can look to what the founders were trying to do by looking to the records of the debate over its wording.  We can hold this against the actual wording.  Then we look at the way the founders actually lived the wording.  When we do this, we see that they intended for the 2nd Amendment to apply to the individual, and to any means of war.  We know this because they allowed private citizens to own cannons and even armed ships of war!  Therefore, the only ruling the Supreme Court can make is to uphold the 2nd Amendment in this context — period!  Anything less is lawlessness, and lawlessness is the rule of men, not the law.

Now, please understand that this story tells us one more thing.  Anyone who agrees with and/or supports the agenda in this story is an enemy of individual rights and liberty, but also of the nation.  This is because this story advocates subversion, and subversion is right next to treason on the list of high crimes against one’s country.

[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special.  There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days.  I write now because I feel driven to do so.  Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read.  I’d just as soon not bother anymore.  It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good.  So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control.  Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not.  All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page.  Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends.  So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish.  Thank you.]

Advertisements

2 responses to “LESSONS IN LOGIC: This Story Is An Admission That The Rule Of Law In America Is Dead

  1. Reblogged this on The way I see things … and commented:
    The article he is referring to suggests the Supreme Court has great powers!

    “Now, please understand that this story tells us one more thing. Anyone who agrees with and/or supports the agenda in this story is an enemy of individual rights and liberty, but also of the nation. This is because this story advocates subversion, and subversion is right next to treason on the list of high crimes against one’s country.”

Your comments are wanted and welcome, but are moderated before posting

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s