By Alan Keyes: ‘Non-birther’ Rand Paul denigrates Constitution… “Like almost everyone else who collaborates with the current two-party sham, Sen. Paul has chosen to abrogate the Constitution’s natural-born citizen………………..”
By Alan Keyes
Sen. Rand Paul just “sidestepped questions about fellow Sen. Ted Cruz‘s (R-Texas) eligibility to run for president, saying he was not a ‘birther.'” Paul’s contempt for the requirements of the Constitution comes as no surprise to me, despite the fact that his supporters frequently pretend he is a staunch “constitutionist.”
But a staunch constitutionist would be careful to remember Joseph Story‘s admonition that acceptable constitutional construction “can never abrogate the text; it can never fritter away its obvious sense; it can never narrow down its limitations; it can never enlarge its natural boundaries.”
Impeaching Supreme Court Justices………… “Most Americans incorrectly believe Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and therefore somehow immune from public accountability, but this understanding is contrary to the Constitution and detrimental to our Republic”
By Matt Shipley Thursday, March 28, 2013
Most Americans incorrectly believe Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and therefore somehow immune from public accountability, but this understanding is contrary to the Constitution and detrimental to our Republic.Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”
Accordingly, it is for a term of good behavior our federal judges hold their office, not life, and they can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.Misdemeanors, as the founders defined them, includes attempts to subvert the Constitution through misinterpretation or other methods. George Mason explained that impeachment is for “attempts to subvert the Constitution,” and Elbridge Jerry considered “mal-administration” as grounds for impeachment. Justice Joseph Story listed, among other reasons for impeachment, “unconstitutional opinions” and “attempts to subvert the fundamental law and introduce arbitrary power.”
Alexander Hamilton and Justice Story defined “misdemeanor” as “mal-conduct” and Justices James Wilson and Story described “misdemeanors” as “non-statutory”, which means they are offenses for which no legal code exists.
From all these definitions and descriptions, it is clear the Constitutional framers intended misdemeanors to cover acts of political misbehavior, because the framers wanted to ensure every elected and appointed official at the national level is accountable to the people.A common legal maxim maintains all contracts are to be construed according to the meaning of the parties at the time of making them.
To interpret any contract contrary to its originally understood meaning is deceitful, subversive and criminal.When the State ratifying committees and the private citizens of each State debated ratifying the Constitution, they did so under a commonly understood meaning to its words and clauses.
Eventually, all thirteen original States ratified the Constitution and joined in union not only for their generation, but on behalf of all future generations.Federal judges who interpret the Constitution in a manner that distorts this original intended meaning are altering the Constitution by circumventing the amendment process in Article V, which is a breach of our national contract.
My friend Brett Joshpe has published an uncharacteristically soft-headed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle arguing that in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, conservatives and Republicans should support what he calls “sensible” gun-control laws. It begins with a subtext of self-congratulation (“As a conservative and a Republican,
I can no longer remain silent . . . Some will consider it heresy,” etc.), casts aspersions of intellectual dishonesty (arguments for preserving our traditional rights are “disingenuous”), advances into ex homine (noting he has family in Sandy Hook, as though that confers special status on his preferences), fundamentally misunderstands the argument for the right to keep and bear arms, deputizes the electorate, and cites the presence of teddy bears as evidence for his case.
Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions.
The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.
Be Patriotic: Become a Secessionst
Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: Spielberg’s Upside-Down History: The Myth of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment
Abraham Lincoln, his administration, and members of the U.S. Congress committed treason when they levied war against the Southern states in 1861-1865. This fact is clearly proven by the plain words of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution that defines treason as follows:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them , or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” (emphasis added).
As in all the founding documents, the phrase “United States” is in the plural, signifying the free, independent and sovereign states. The free and independent states were united in ratifying the Constitution and delegating a few powers to the national government (Article 1, Section 8), while reserving all others for the people, respectively, or the states, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. If the American people were to be the masters rather than the servants of their national government, the only way they could do so would be through political communities organized at the state and local levels.
This of course is how the Constitution was ratified – by political conventions of the states, as directed by Article 7 of the Constitution. Since Lincoln never admitted that secession was legal or constitutional, and insisted that the Southern states had never actually left the American union, he knowingly committed treason as defined by the Constitution by invading the Southern states.
Are Americans obligated to take up arms against would-be tyrants? ~ (“That “palladium of liberties” has never been exercised more frequently than during the four years Barack Hussein Obama has been in the White House. “)
In 1833, thirty four year member of the Supreme Court, Joseph Story, wrote: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.” (1)
That “palladium of liberties” has never been exercised more frequently than during the four years Barack Hussein Obama has been in the White House. According to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), “…the top 10 record gun sales days have occurred since Barack Obama’s election in 2008, and gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last four years.” (2)
Obamacare and the Revenge of the “Secret Constitution”
“[T]he majority has at all times a right to govern the minority, and to bind the latter to obedience to the will of the former…. In a general sense the will of the majority of the people is absolute and sovereign, limited only by its means and power to make its will effectual.”
“The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing else but this — Power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestrained by rules.”