- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 10,476
- Reaction score
- 2,623
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So far they have not attempted to personally take away my rights. Maybe I will die before having to watch this nation lose everything our forefathers fought for. It is sad to see how much of what our unions fought for lost due to a failed immigration policy, cheap labor, combined with moving industry to other countries thanks to favorable laws passed by our bought and paid for political leaders.
The moment any constitutional right has been infringed your rights are being taken away. What do you mean none of your rights have been taken? Do you mean only the rights you want or think are of any use to you?
Take a wander over to Constitutionality Crisis
In its practice of Judicial Review, too often the Supreme Court is not asking: "Are this citizen's rights being violated by this law?" Instead the question is: "Is the violation of this citizen's rights justified because of overriding government goals and objectives?" Too often the answer the court delivers is "yes." When your rights get in the way of a government objective, you lose.
Government created to protect your rights should have no goal higher than the protection of those rights. When government's own goals override your rights, government is acting unconstitutionally. Government often states that these violations of citizens' rights are necessary "for the good of society." Society is ill served by laws which violate the rights of the citizens making up that society.
Because of prohibition era violence, in 1934, the congress passed the National Firearms Act (NFA). What they really wanted to do was simply ban certain kinds of weapons. Of course, they could not impose an outright ban — the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. But imposing taxes is a power constitutionally granted to the congress Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."). The NFA does not therefore ban any weapons, but it does impose a tax on certain weapons and "destructive devices" which the congress thought to be the primary weapons used by the gangs — machine guns, sawed off shotguns and the like.
More recently, of course, the congress has enacted an "assault weapons" ban prohibiting the manufacture of certain, scary-looking guns. A ban on the manufacture of machine guns (except for law enforcement) has also been enacted. The Second Amendment has not changed. These bans are just as unconstitutional now as they would have been in 1934. What has changed is the willingness of the congress to legislate in areas where it is not empowered to do so. Experience has taught the congress that it can ignore the constraints of the Constitution with impunity because the Supreme Court will uphold these unconstitutional laws.
What this means is the states and citizens have abdicated their power and duty to review and correct what government is doing. Who decides what is constitutional? Government?
Some excellent points and good reading