Sunday, February 28, 2010

Conversating with my lawyer about McDonald vs Chicago

An inquisitive look into The McDonald case set in question/answer format, modified from multiple emails with my family lawyer.

General - The classic conservative view of gun rights (and rights in general) will be the Constitution merely created a federal government- and the Amendments, in context with the 9th and 10th Amendments, are aimed solely at state and federal courts (and not directly at the people) ensuring those natural, inalienable rights that pre-existed will be honored by state law.
The libertarian view is that all civil rights, as those noted in the Amendments, are aimed directly at all the peoples, from whatever source.
The modern progressive view will likely, begrudgingly, be viewed only that it affects federal territories; but then what to do with supposed (man-made) equality and fairness in widespread social engineering?
All ideals, represented on our current Court, will have some difficulty with the upcoming McDonald case, particularly when you add in pressures from social and political groups and big money. But simply put, let’s look at the wording of the 2nd Amendment:”THE right ….,” clearly makes reference to a right that already existed, period.
The complications from all ideals are aimed in favor of progressivism because the protective "bubble" of our republic is already gone, distorting conservatism and libertarianism, putting the progressives (liberals) in the middle of an already heated political battle, staged to do significant damage to the people's individual rights. For years the High Court and our Congress has been chipping away at the uniquely formed concepts of federalism, 'S'overeignty, and inalienable rights- the three-fold foundation of our republic.
Unfortunately, I’m afraid the “Miracle That Changed the World” is on its downward trend, as Franklin’s rising sun is now depicting a setting one.
Upon the completion of our normal business in a civil matter, my lawyer yelled to me across the parking lot, “Why don’t you send me some info on the McDonald case.”

My first email to Mr. Lawyer: Lots of opinions to be found about the McDonald vs Chicago gun rights case; and, as usual, most of them do not include my opinion. I say the entire system is turned upside down. In my opinion, Americans have held natural and INALIENABLE rights from the moment of our acknowledgment(July 2, 1776) and notice(July 4, 1776) of our separation from England.
In short, the people banded together and picked leadership. Then, by states, they formed various state constitutions empowering limited government. Eventually, these state reps came together and formed a federal (as opposed to national) government. This naturally means authority/sovereignty began in the people, and progressed downward through the people, to the states, then to the fed. And, also naturally, as power flows (the transference of a progressively lessening degree of sovereignty) through each level, it naturally must always bow to it's predecessor/creator. Sounds simple to me.
Thus, just as our Declaration refers to, the people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And, taken in context of the entire Constitution, we have to think of the document as a whole when we look at any part of it; the 9th and 10th amendment tell me the restrictions are on federal government and not on the people except only when specifically therein enumerated otherwise.
Further, rights are those little things that are unalienable and cannot be specifically identified and enumerated on paper, thus, again, the 9th and 10th Amendments. Naturally, we can then also conclude rights exist regardless of any man-made institution. It is the institution that creates/legislates only privileges.
Thus, in the McDonald case, the High Court should only be determining if gun rights (right to self defense) are actually rights or if they are grants in privilege allowed by Big Brother (as opposed to Uncle Sam). Of course this gets a little more complicated when we look at the natural flow of the proper chain of command: God, then Man, then state gov, then fed gov, etc.
But in my opinion, this natural downward flow of sovereignty has been turned upside down, a situation that makes our constitution wholly inadequate to neither govern the people, nor hold gov at bay, as it is now at the top of the power pyramid where “Nature and Nature’s God” use to be.
Here's a reasonable though biased look at what is to come:

Here's the Supreme Court's docket sheet; pan down to beginning of March 2nd:

Our whole system has been perverted for many decades. in my opinion. Decision after decision, relying in part on the stare decisis doctrine for authority and protection, has set the stage for McDonald to be far more reaching than it will seem to be initially. One piece at a time, through ignorance and complacency and apathy, our republic falls.

From Mr. Lawyer: “I am pretty sure that there is a web page where you can get recordings of the oral arguments made with respect to this case. Then of course it would be cool to get the case decision and read it. If I get some time (ha ha) will try to see if I can find the oral arguments. I don't have much of an opinion one way or another about the 2nd amendment, simply because I haven't thought about it much.”

My answer: Really? The only way private property can exist is if the owner has the absolute right to protect it; without the inalienable right to private property, which must include the right to protect it, then there are no other basic rights -- we become a bona fide democracy with only those privileges which other men (in black robes) then can pick and choose to give democratic groupings. Thus, all freedoms become purely political, states rights completely disappear, and we become subjects to a singular authority.
I have OYZE < > saved to my favorites. We shall see how complicated a simple, natural, inalienable right is made to disappear.

Just one tidbit- The only true revolution is one in which a dictatorial regime falls AND is not replaced by another. In Human history, America is that one and only revolution. But when we allow our republic to falter our future is assured to rejoin the typical path of all other nations. When private property can no longer be immediately protected by its private owner, then it shall be then protected by its actual owner, the nation state. Our one true revolution becomes distant memory and our children become serfs.
Notwithstanding, no lawyer can argue this fact in such a simple fashion for he will be laughed out of court; equal protection laws already overtook states rights way back with the Equal Protection Clause. Even though such a drastic change cannot be identified in a manner in which one can put their finger on it, the concept of equal protection at the federal (national) level, along with national interstate commerce laws (in the hands of judicial and executive activism), focuses all sovereignty upon one entity - Big Brother.
You think those lawyers (preparing to argue the McDonald case) will argue this point any better? In fact, you think they will argue this point at all? Staying within the (perverted) natural order of authority, the state is wholly empowered now to define all rights (privileges). The only question left to argue is which "state" holds that ultimate power, the individual states, or the nation-state. Either way, there are no longer any untouchable, natural, inalienable rights, which brings us to "Man and the State" as defined by Jacques Maritain -- socialism reigns supreme and capitalism suffers its final blow, and democracy smothers our republic, to be replaced with what we already have – a soft tyranny. The tried and true concept of the Rule of Law under our Constitution and the common law becomes the Rule of Man as defined under Marxism.
Socialism has never lasted long before it turns to dictatorship, and the round-robin, wagon-wheel affect continues. For us to think we are so superior to all those who came before us is ego-maniacal, .. and dangerous; history forgotten is history repeated.
Tindall in "America," and Tocqueville in "Democracy in America," are two of hundreds of deliverers of this message. Reagan was our last President to state as much.

Watch the Supreme Court Docket for McDonald vs Chicago:

Want to listen to the oral arguments?
The end.

If you care about our inalienable rights, such as the right to pursue life, to pursue liberty, and to pursue property, call and write and email your state and fed reps and do it now! I want to hear the buzz from our living rooms, our pubs, restaurants, churches, etc. This is another critical time in American history, a time in which we can right the wrong done by Brokaw’s Greatest Generation.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Think out your thoughts first: