Sovereigns or Anarchists?

Sovereigns or Anarchists?

I wrote this article back in February.  It was lost in the piles.  Now it’s found and–without further proof-reading–published:

The Constitution of the United States was ratified by the people in A.D. 1789.  In that same year, the Congress proposed thirteen Amendments to the Constitution.  Of these thirteen proposed Amendments, ten were actually ratified.  Today, these ten are commonly referred to today as the “Bill of Rights”.

When Congress first proposed these Amendments, they sent copies of the proposed Amendments and a “cover letter” to the governments of each of the States of the Union.  The “cover letter” explained the fundamental purpose for the Amendments.

Today, that “cover letter” is largely unrecognized but can be found on the internet if you search for “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”.   That “Preamble” declares in part,

“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution:”

I am somewhat unusual.  I not only know about that “preamble,” I’ve taken the time to read and even expended some energy in trying to understand it.

My understanding makes clear that the purpose for what we currently call the “Bill of Rights” was to protect the States of the Union and the people therein from the federal government.  I.e., the Congress expressly declared that the purpose of what became the Bill of Rights was “to prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the “powers” of The Constitution of the United States.

Q:  Who could “misconstrue or abuse” the “powers” of the Constitution?

A:  Not me.  Not anyone acting in a private capacity.  Only those who were acting as officers or employees of the federal government (created by the Constitution) would be endowed with “powers” under the Constitution and thus only the officers and employees of the federal government would be in a position to “misconstrue or abuse” those “powers”.

Thus, the Bill of Rights is intended to protect the States of the Union and the People of the States of the Union against the federal government.  I don’t say so.  Congress said so in the “preamble” to the Bill of Rights.

So far, my observations concerning the “preamble” may seem fairly logical and uncontroversial.  However, it’s sometimes astonishing how much emotion can be inspired by a simple exercise in logic.

There’s no question that the “preamble” expressed the proposed purpose for the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

There’s no question that the “preamble’s” purpose was to prevent “misconstruction and abuse” of the “powers” of the Constitution.

There’s no question that the “powers” of the Constitution are only granted to officers and/or employees of the federal government.

Thus, for me, the logical conclusion is obvious and irrefutable:  The purpose of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution is to protect the States of the Union and the People of the States of the Union against the federal government created by the Constitution.

But, as I said, it can be astonishing how much emotion can be inspired by a seemingly simple exercise in logic.

Q:  How’d I inspire so much emotion?

A:  By specifically applying the purpose declared in the “preamble” the Bill of Rights to the Second Amendment.

See, insofar as:

1) the Second Amendment guarantees the “right to keep and bear arms” and is one of the Bill of Rights;

2) the “preamble to the Bill of Rights” expressly tells us that the purpose of all ten amendments constituting the Bill of Rights is to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the “powers” of the federal Constitution; then,

3) it seems apparent that the purpose of the Second Amendment was guarantee the People of the States of the Union the right to “keep and bear arms” in order to shoot and kill officers and employees of the federal government who had “misconstrued or abused” the powers of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment is not about protecting a sportsman’s right to hunt ducks or bear.  It’s not fundamentally about protecting the States against invasion by Canada, Mexico, Great Britain or even Red China.  The Second Amendment’s fundamental purpose is to protect us against abuse of the powers of the Constitution by the federal government.

Given that the Second Amendment is all about “arms,” how else could those “arms” be used to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the “powers” of the Constitution besides shooting and potentially killing those officers or employees of the federal who had “misconstrued and abused” the powers of the Constitution?

What else could it be?  Did the Founders ratify the Second Amendment so we could simply show our firearms to the feds?  If I’m falsely charged with a crime in a federal court and I walk in with a rifle, show it to the judge, and mention the Second Amendment, will the judge say, “Boy, that’s a beauty of a rifle, —thanks for showin’ it to me—case dismissed!”?

The only way the Second Amendment makes sense in the context of the purpose declared in the “preamble” to the Bill of Rights, is as a guarantee of the right to keep “arms” for the purpose of shooting and killing officers and employees of the federal government.

For me, that’s not a controversial statement.  It’s simply an exercise in logic.  You read; you think; you come to a logical conclusion.

But, perhaps my logic is faulty.  Maybe someone correct my error and show me why my allegedly “logical” conclusion is false.  And, if anyone can show me my mistake, I’ll thank ‘em for doing so.

More, bear in mind that I’m not giving my opinion—I’m offering my “logic” concerning the purpose for the Second Amendment.  It’s the Founders who gave us their opinion on the purpose for the right to “keep and bear arms”.  I’m only quoting—or more clearly expressing—the Founders’ statements.

Make $300 today! (Home)
http://youthpayment.com/?invite=26006

LEGAL ASSISTANCE FUND

IN AMERICA THERE IS NO JUST FOR THOSE WITH OUT MONEY WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR DONATION IN HELPING THOSE WITH OUT THE RESOURCES TO DEFEND THEMSELFS IN AMERICA'S JUSTICE SYSTEM

http://istherejusticeinamericaforthose.blogspot.com/