OpEd: Jack
Hey Barack Obama &Diane Feinstein stfu...! You are overstepping your authority..you have absolutely no power to ignore the Constitution and the Bill of rights!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by
Publius Huldah
The latest round of rubbish flooding our in boxes is an ignorant rant
claiming that the Dick Act of 1902 (which respects our Right to be
armed) can’t be repealed because to do so would “violate bills of
attainder and ex post facto laws”.
Who dreams up this stuff? Does anyone check it out before they spread it around?
Of course we have
the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc., etc. Our Declaration of Independence (2
nd para) recognizes that
our Rights come from God and are unalienable.
The 2nd Amendment to our federal Constitution recognizes that this
God-given right to keep and bear arms is to be free from any
interference WHATSOEVER from the federal government.
Our Framers were all for an armed American People – they understood
that arms are our ultimate defense in the event the federal government
oversteps its bounds. See, e.g., what James Madison, Father of Our
Constitution, writes in the second half of
Federalist Paper No. 46! The reason
the Citizens – the Militia
– are armed is to defend ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods,
communities, and States from an overreaching, tyrannical federal
government.
Accordingly, the federal government is
nowhere in
the Constitution granted authority to abridge, restrict, or infringe,
in any fashion whatsoever, guns, ammunition, etc. Thus, ALL such
restrictive laws made by Congress, and ALL regulations made by the
Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (ATF), are unconstitutional as
outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress and to the Executive
Branch by our Constitution. Restriction of arms and ammunition is NOT
one of the “enumerated powers” delegated to Congress or the Executive
Branch.
Furthermore, all pretended regulations made by the ATF are also unconstitutional as in violation of
Art. I, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution, which vests ALL legislative powers granted by the Constitution in CONGRESS. Executive agencies have no lawful authority
whatsoever to make rules or regulations of general application to The People!
In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty
do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly.
Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to
disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by Treaty.
See,
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/the-treaty-making-power-of-the-united-states/
But the assertion that one Congress may not repeal acts of a previous Congress is idiotic.
And the assertion that Congress can’t repeal the Dick Act because a
repeal would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws” shows
that whoever wrote that doesn’t know what he is talking about. He
obviously has no idea what a “bill of attainder” is, and no idea what an
“ex post facto law” is.
This accurately explains what a “
bill of attainder” is:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Bill-of-Attainder.htm
An “
ex post facto” law RETROACTIVELY criminalizes conduct which was not criminal when it was done.
Say you barbequed outside last Sunday. That was lawful when you did
it. Next month, Congress makes a pretended law which purports to
retroactively criminalize barbequing outdoors. So, now, what you did is a
crime (for which you are subject to criminal prosecution); even thou
when you did it, it wasn’t a crime.
That is an ex post facto law.
Now, say Congress passes a pretended law making possession of
firearms a crime and ordering everyone to turn in their guns. Only if
you do not turn in your guns will you have committed a “crime”. That is
not an ex post facto law because if you turn in your guns, you won’t be
criminally prosecuted. The “crime” is the failure to turn in your guns –
not the prior possession of guns.
Such a law would be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because gun control is
not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Thus, the law would be
outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress.
It would also be unconstitutional as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
But it would not be an ex post facto law.
People shouldn’t sling around terms, the meanings of which, they do not understand. It is immoral.
If TRUTH spread as rapidly as lies, our problems would have been
resolved long ago. But if People can come to love TRUTH more than they
love the ignorant rubbish they circulate, perhaps it is not too late to
restore our Constitutional Republic. PH
Endnote:
In
Federalist Paper No. 84 (4
th para), Alexander Hamilton says re
ex post facto laws (and of the importance of the writ of habeas corpus):
“…The creation of crimes after the commission of the
fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things
which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the
practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the
favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny…” PH
No comments:
Post a Comment