Category Archives: Constitution

Care to Surrender your Facebook Password for a Permit to OWN a Gun?

Facebook Account Information Used by Police to Approve or Deny Gun “Permits” in New York Town

 According to a piece in thefreethoughtproject.com,  the Watervliet  Police Department and the court which issues gun permits in that New York community have been found  violating the Constitution on multiple counts.  They’re not even violating it under the provision of any statute or law.  It’s simply police department procedure that has been unquestioned until now.

The City of Watervliet requires that residents wishing to possess a handgun there must be permitted to do so. As unconstitutional as that is in itself, that’s not even the main source of outrage here.

Recently the department sent a form to an applicant who had applied for a local handgun “permit”. The application received asked the applicant supply personal Facebook account information as a condition for granting the “permit”.

This applicant rightfully complained.  The department responded by claiming that the form was sent to him in error.  They said that the form he received was the one normally filled out used in face-to-face interviews.

There were other details and you can check them out here.

This is just one example of constitutional abuses increasing at every level of government nationwide.  The real history of the American Revolution is no longer taught in public schools, and it’s showing now.

Demanding Facebook Information for Gun “Permits” is a Threefold Constitutional Violation

First, this policy violates the applicant’s 1st Amendment rights to free speech by ruling for or against the issue of a permit to exercise 2nd Amendment rights on the basis of the applicant’s political views.

It violates 2nd Amendment rights first by virtue of the very existence of a law requiring a permit to own a pistol (more on that later), and second by making it possible to deny a citizen his natural individual rights for purely political reasons.

This policy also violates the 4th Amendment by forcing the applicant to accept a warrantless search of personal property, namely, Facebook account information.

Don’t Forget the 10th Amendment.  What’s That?

Let’s look at the unconstitutionality of all state and local law.  Such law may not conflict with rights defined in the Constitution.  The 10th Amendment covers that.  The 10th Amendment states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

It is clear then, that states and localities may not pass law contrary to the supreme law of the Constitution, whose 2nd Amendment guarantees no infringement.  Issuing a “permit” to exercise what is already a right is infringement.  Therefore, every state or city law requiring the “permitting” of gun possession is infringing, and is therefore invalid on the basis on the 10th Amendment and the 2nd Amendment. 

Every Gun Law is Unconstitutional! Every One!

The existence of a law, regardless of the established constitutional process it went through in order to become law, by no means establishes or creates the constitutionality of that law.  It’s a fact that unconstitutional law is passed regularly, and that consequently we live in a maze of conflicting state and federal laws, many of them constitutionally invalid.  The 10th Amendment has not been honored.

In this small town case in New York, a local government has granted itself an authority it never had constitutional grounds to possess. Government regulation of speech and behavior is not a constitutional right at any level, federal, state, or local.  The Bill of Rights was written for the people’s protection from government, and no rights belong to government.  Only the Constitution defines what it may do.  The regulation of free speech, the regulation of the individual’s right to bear arms, the right to be protected from warrantless searches and seizures – these rights belong naturally to the individual.  Any claim of any level of government to act contrary to these protections is a tyrannical abuse of power.

This is getting old. The 2nd Amendment says “shall not be infringed”.

The primary motivation of the Founders for designing the constitutional republic that they did was to prevent the possibility of recurrence of the same tyrannical abuses they had just a decade earlier revolted against!

George Mason wrote that the 2nd Amendment was established to ensure that the people would be protected from repeating the very same tyrannical enslavement by government that King George III had inflicted upon them.  Noah Webster strongly agreed.  It’s all in the history that is no longer taught in public schools.

In the 4th Amendment, warrantless searches were prohibited, as well as standing federal armies.  Why do you suppose they mentioned that?  Could it have had anything to do with the presence of militarized police in the colonies that were directed by agents of King George III?

Running over the Constitution

The Constitution was carefully designed to provide infallible guidance which, properly applied, would suppress tyrannical government actions at all levels.  However, when the Constitution is neither respected and nor honored for its original intentions, it becomes useless.  In proportion as knowledge of the history of our founding era has diminished, so has respect for our Constitution.  As a result, Supreme Court rulings have replaced and superseded constitutional authority, and consequently the Constitution is now regularly run over by the courts.

Constitutional Infringements Running Rampant at Local Government Levels

Come to think of it, I said that the Watervliet police department was not violating the Constitution under the provision of any statute or law.  But they really were.  The very fact that their city honors an unconstitutional law is the basis of this entire set of additional infractions

Contentions that a law is constitutional and valid until its validity is overturned by the Supreme Court, are ridiculous. That position would render the Constitution of no value unless it were to be first sanctioned by the federal government  –  the very entity it was designed to protect the people against!

Read more at http://westernjournalism.com 

Facebooktwitterrss

Christian Sermons are the New Hate Speech!

The “Bathroom Bill”

One October 17th, 2014, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, stood in defense of Houston pastors’ First Amendment right to preach and speak from the pulpit freely.  The controversy has been nicknamed “the bathroom bill”   Thanks to our Bill of Rights, The City of Houston has backed off, a little bit at least. Let’s review the event and analyze how and why the Constitution once  again is at least almost doing its job as designed.

Senator Cruz’s speech concerned a shockingly unconstitutional attempt by the City of Houston to restrict Houstonians’ practice of religion and free speech, in favor of furthering a pro-gay political agenda backed by the city government.

In the video linked below, Senator Cruz called upon the pastors and citizens of Houston to defy the City of Houston’s recent unjust sermon subpoena requirement.

That’s right, you read it correctly; a city requirement to examine and approve the contents — of Christian sermons!

Listen to exactly what Senator Cruz had to say about the matter here,  courtesy of  The Liberty Foundation

Outrage is Due!

This action taken by the City of Houston should seem  outrageous to  every American, but what is frightening is that this unjust policy  garnered  any support from the public at all.  Gay and transgender supporters feel especially offended  by traditional Christians who disagree with their version of morality.

No Political Bias Here

I’m not here to defend or to oppose the morality held by the offended party, namely, the LGBT crowd.  I’m only here to defend every  citizen’s inalienable right to hold and to speak his own religious opinion freely.  Period.

Who Grants Human Authority?

Who granted the City of Houston the authority to pass judgment upon the truth of any human opinion?  Who granted The City of Houston the authority to exercise an assumption that their morality trumps all other versions of morality?  Nobody grants such authority, and that logically renders such supposed authority invalid.

Any humanly supposed authority is self granted. It has no real authority, except that imagined by those who claim it. Such a false supposition of authority rings of tyranny.

The First and Tenth Amendments

We’re all familiar with the First Amendment’s assurance of free speech and  of free religious practice, but what about the Tenth Amendment?

In a nutshell, the Tenth Amendment states that all clauses distinctly defined in the Bill of Rights are valid and enforceable at every level of government within the United States, including, but not limited to the level of state and city governments.

That means that the First Amendment always trumps local laws and rulings.  The right to practice free speech of any nature is universal and inalienable, and that is why it was spelled out in the Bill of Rights – because that is what the Bill of Rights is, namely, an enumeration of inalienable rights..

The Right to Live Your Own Belief System is also Universal

I can really sympathize with the LGBT point of view, but I cannot at all sympathize with their unconstitutional methods of flexing political power.

The right to your own belief system is yours,  and the right to speak freely about that belief system is yours  – whatever it might be.   So, let’s look at both sides of the coin.

If you are LGBT or an LGBT sympathizer, you have the right to be what you are, and you have the right to openly disagree with those who oppose your choices.  That is, in traditional Christian terms, free will.  If you are an atheist,  it’s a sure bet you will still agree that you possess an inherent right to choose for yourself.

Likewise, if you are the member of a Christian congregation, or the pastor over such a congregation, you also have the right to be what you are, and you have the right to openly disagree with those who oppose your choices.  It’s as simple as that!

LGBTs, like anyone else, don’t like being criticized for their choices, and neither do Christians.  Yet, Christian pastors do not disagree with the individual right for any individual to choose to be LGBT.  Once again, that’s called free will in religious circles.  It’s widely accepted in traditional Christianity that God granted us free will,  the option of making a mistake that can be corrected.  What  Christians preach about is what they see as the dangers of your making the wrong  choice, and of course they hope to talk you out of doing what they feel might be bad for you.

Yes, certain churches do condemn the practice of homosexuality, and they do openly preach against it, and  they do warn of what they believe to be the dangers of that style of life.  On the flip side, pro-gay groups are often quite active in openly bashing traditional Christianity.

Do not pastors, as Americans, have as much right to condemns LGBTs , as LGBTs have a right to openly preach against and condemn Christians?  Pro-gay groups do commonly openly bash traditional Christianity, yet traditional Christians generally do not call for the silencing of the opinions of the LGBT crowd.  Why the hypocrisy?

 The New Hate Speech

Why is a traditional pastor’s version of the truth painted as hateful, while the derision of Christians on the part of those who oppose traditional moral Christianity, the LGBT version of truth,  is painted as a fair and balanced view?

Why do we consistently see one sided behavior from human government that would silence traditional Christian opinion, and would herald their own humanist opinion as the superior one?  If Christians were really mistaken, and the real God is not divine, but instead humanism really rules us all, then there would be no real authority outside of humanism!

Who, then, in a supposed humanist world, would decide which of the two humanist views was superior?

Facebooktwitterrss

Terry Holcomb Sr. Goes to Jail for Defending Liberty For YOU!

Terry Holcomb Sr. Stands Up for Himself  (and other Constitutional Commentary)

Take a good listen to the details of this event. The actions of this judge are despicable. Here is KrisAnne Hall’s plea for you to listen to this broadcast and take action:

“What is Liberty worth to you? To Terry Holcomb, Sr. it is worth going to jail. Mr. Holcomb refused to allow his voice to be silenced by tyrannical government and that tyrannical government put him in jail. He stood his ground peacefully, while others watched on in submission to tyranny. Mr. Holcomb defended Liberty for YOU and YOUR CHILDREN. Will YOU stand with him NOW?”

Just three days ago, a judge in a Texas county decided to adjourn a meeting which was held for the purpose of hearing public redress of an issue to which there was public opposition.

The County didn’t want to hear any opposition. So what did the judge do? He adjourned the meeting before anyone had a chance to speak contrary to the intentions of the County……. and of course that was the designated reason for the meeting in the first place.

One man, Terry Honcomb, Sr.,  protested and demanded that he be allowed to speak. . Inspite of the fact that the meeting was already formally adjourned when Mr. Holcomb spoke up, he was arrested and jailed on a bogus charge because he had refused to be denied the opportunity to be heard.  Mr. Holcomb broke no law, and only stood up for his right to be hear and not to be run over by a judge’s abuse of authority.

 

—>  Listen to the audio commentary by KrisAnne Hall  here

 

Why there even is a Bill of Rights

Why would I take the position that the Constitution was written to protect the people against the unjust actions of a tyrannical government? Maybe it’s because the history of the activities of the Continental Congress in 1789 verifies that position. The Federalists actually argued against the creation of the Bill of Rights, but not because they disagreed with its proposed contents.

Alexander Hamilton, representing the Federalist point of view, argued against the creation of a Bill of Rights, and it was a hotly contested issue in the Constitutional debates.  His motivations for taking that position were also quite reasonable. Hamilton contended that as soon as you spell out a defined set of individual rights, those specific words would be used to rule in favor of the allowance or prohibition of anything that was not specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights  as prohibited or allowed.  Hamilton was quite perceptive.

The Bill of Rights WAS created, and now we can see exactly that happening today. Liberals.  in their interpretation of the Bill of Rights, take exactly the same position that Hamilton feared would be taken.

For instance, in the modern  liberal view, you can outlaw certain kinds of weapons, because their allowance was not specifically spelled out when the Constitution was penned in 1789. After all, automatic rifles did not exist back then. Therefore, by their argument, we can outlaw them without ever infringing on the rights that existed in 1789.

Likewise, in the liberal view, we can define what comprises “the press” to exclude bloggers and Facebook particpants because the press was nothing more than newspapers back in 1789. The internet did not exist yet. Therefore, by their argument, bloggers and people who do not fit a government definition of “press” can be excluded from the freedom of press rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Those are only two examples and both pf them typify exactly the kind of Constitutional abuse that Hamilton warned against. On the other hand, although that’s why Hamilton didn’t favor adopting a Bill of Rights, where would we be without it to lean on today? Hamilton lost that argument, and the Bill of Rights DOES exist. So now, we have this resulting interpretation debate to deal with, just as Hamilton predicted would happen.

What is the only logical answer to this Constitutional interpretation debate?

In my mind, original intent is the only argument behind which anyone can stand with any sort of logical validity. Original intent is easy enough to understand on the basis of the history that transpired in the debates of the Continental Congress, resulting in the penning of the final documents. If we can establish what the Framers intended, that is, what the absolute meaning behind their words was, that must certainly take precedence over any sort of opinion about it. Rulings about whatever the Constitution DIDN’T ever say, can logically be nothing but baseless and personally biased opinions. Such opinions are easy to spot, because they without exception walk on someone’s inalienable rights.


The narrator, KrisAnne Hall, in the piece linked above well explains the debate in 1789 over whether or not there even should have been a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution. If you really read and dig into history, you will learn that the party which believed that the purpose of the Constitution was to give the people power over potential tyrannical government, was the same party that WON the debate over the issue of whether or not there should even BE be an enumerated Bill of Rights. Because they won that argument, the Bill of Rights was created and ratified.

I have been told by liberal minded friends that I need to read the Constitution because I am supposedly misinterpreting it.

Well, I did. I carry a copy in my briefcase. I also read history, and I also considered the tyrannical actions of King George, who inspired the Colonists to revolt and to declare independence from his tyrannical government.

What I have not done, and which makes me incapable of Constitutional interpretation, according to one of my esteemed well meaning liberal friends, is to take a course from a liberal arts college law department which teaches students to interpret the Constitution in exactly the manner against which Alexander Hamilton warned it is not to be interpreted.

Be sure to listen to the audio and take action.

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!