Of Arms and the LawInterview here.
“In the wake of the fierce, nationwide debate over gun rights and gun control, Justice Ginsburg also explained the historical basis for her view on the Second Amendment.
“The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia … Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias,” she said. “The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.”
Ginsburg said the disappearance of that purpose eliminates the function of the Second Amednment.
“It’s function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own,” she said. “I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So … the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete.”
As for the Heller case, decided by the court in 2008, Ginsburg says the court erred in its decision.
“If the court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new,” she said. “It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.””
I won’t go into the historical angle (the shortfall of money was one reason for a militia, but it was one almost never mentioned at the time — the big argument for the militia was that it could be as powerful as desired without any risk of it taking over the government, unlike a standing army), but into the reasoning. One of the many problems with the collective rights view is that its proponents never want to consider their theory’s results — which would be that any State could revive its militia system and presumably arm it as the State pleased. M-4s, SAWs, F-16s. The Justice deals with that by saying that the Second Amendment has become “obsolete” and presumably inoperative in *any* way.
I don’t see any precedent (legal or historical) for the Court to simply declare a provision in the “Supreme law of the land” obsolete, i.e., not fitting in with their world-view. There are plenty of constitutional provisions which some might think obsolete. A government which deploys the NSA certainly seems to think the Fourth Amendment obsolete in an age of terror. The $20 threshold on civil right to jury is certainly obsolete, but still followed. How about the right to petition? In early Congresses, each petition was read aloud — now, I suspect they are given the circular file.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/10/justice_ginsber.php
When these s#!t bags swear there oaths is it to uphold the constitution as it is or as they hope to interpret/make it. It must be obsolete to her cause its gonna be used aginst them and the way the wish they could make our country. Can’t we ship these a$$holes to a like minded country where they can rule unarmed mindless sheeple without ruining the greatness we hope to preserve here. Sorry we are going to preserve here
The only place we’ll be shipping these traitors off to is about a million + Fahrenheit.
(Hint: I’m not talking about the sun).
first off……there is nothing in the original US Const…that says……after so and such, this part becomes obsolete……..the originators of this document, I believe were thinking and writing for the contained, all time, of the United States……and provided..a way to change the original constitution……..and regards to the
2nd amendment……..no change has been brought up……..
There for it stands just as written……….
Also, this Justice has no more of an idea of the original thinking than any one else……..because, no one today was there to speak in person to any of these original people……doing the thinking and writing.
this supreme court justice is shallow at best……..actually full of bullshit…..
and I would tell her so.
If thats what we have on the Supreme court and the people sitting beside her in black robes can not think any better than that……..I wonder how this our country ever got as far as it has………..my god!
As a lawyer for 38 years, I must admit that the Hon. Ginsburg has a point. Let’s thank her for her insight and return to our roots. Abolish the standing army – for which there is absolutely no authority in the Constitution whatsoever – and reinstate Militias. Once we have done so, we’ll all be in compliance with our Constitutional mission and mandate to keep and bear arms for the specific purpose our forefathers (in their infinite wisdom) provided. Be careful what you wish for, Madam Justice. Your wish may come true. Molon Labe.
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, Tench Coxe
Justice Ginsberg says the argument for the militia was that it could be as powerful as desired without any risk of it taking over the government, unlike a standing army. As the militia consists of we the people, isn’t this the idea? No government is supposed to rule over us. We are self-governing. Our rights exist both in the contract known as the Constitution for the united States of the Americas and without, as each one of us possesses our rights individually and away from the government. The government has absolutely no authority to define nor regulate any free man’s rights, thus their intent is to make us slaves, thus our intent is the 2nd Article to our absolute and uninfringeable Bill of Rights, which is the final guarantee for our rights absolute as free American nationals.
Thanks for dropping by, Tom.
From someone I dare say knows a bit more about the Constitution than the aforementioned:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
And as far as I’m concerned, Ms. Ginsberg is not “honorable”, when she wants to infringe on the American nationals’ unalienable right to keep and bear arms.
LOL that was the best back handed compliment to a government shill’s point ever great job
Fantastic response, Tom. /applause
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared,then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have NO power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.” Tench Coxe
Justice Ginsberg-This is the view of the Founding Fathers, and it is my view also. Come and take it if you can. Another name to add to that LONG list for the hemp rope.
There’s a special place in Gitmo for her.
“It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.”
That’s exactly right, you POS dried up old prune.
The fight WILL be to preserve the nation.
From communists like you, b#tch.
One more finger jab in the chest from yet another dried up old tyrant.
And now a song for the holidays.
You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I’m telling you why
The spirit of 1776 is rising
The spirit of 1776 is rising
The spirit of 1776 is rising
We’re making a list
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out Who’s a tyrannical bitch
The spirit of 1776 is rising
The spirit of 1776 is rising
The spirit of 1776 is rising
We see you when you’re spying
So many of us are awake
We know you’ve been up to no good
So resign for fvck’s sake!
O! You better watch out!
Need some help with the ending
I would use “treasonus scum” instead of “tyrannical bitch” because it is all both sexes of the congress, the executive branch, and the judicial which are committing treason against the USA.
Treason requires hanging,
Domestic terrorism requires death,
Laws of our nation needs enforcing
Actions to defend the Constitution
From all Oath takers needed
And we can remove or prosecute the rest…
Let them try to push this issue,
The legitimacy of the government is failing.
MOLON LABE
George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778
George Washington
“At a time, when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke, and maintain the liberty, which we have derived from our ancestors. But the manner of doing it, to answer the purpose effectually, is the point in question. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion. Yet arms, I would beg leave to add, should be the last resource, the dernier resort… – Letter to George Mason, Apr. 5, 1769; The Writings of George Washington, collected and edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1889). Vol. III (1758-1775)
all this comin from a woman who’s security force is armed to the nines ?! such hypocracy.
The masters need protection from the slaves my dear. Why else would they want so much protection. I think there was another intent and that was against tyranny by a government upon its people. Yes?
FYI: IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY FUTURE TERRORIST?
Governor Cuomo signed the bill on Thursday and said, “These men and women have made invaluable sacrifices for our state and nation, and now that they have returned home, government will work for them. We are proud to help distinguish them as veterans.” ANDY “ONE TERM” CUOMO
Under the new law, veterans can choose whether or not to have a distinguishing mark added to their driver’s license or non-driver ID to indicate their status.
Ginsberg is outright lying. She can be FIRED, yes fired, for breaking her contract which is to support and defend the US Constitution and to carry out the duties assigned to all judges – state and federal – by it.
Remember, the people created the states, the states created the US Constitution which defines and assigns the duties of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was made to forbid anyone serving within any branch of the federal government from messing with the natural rights of the people listed there, plus those not listed there as is made clear by the 9th Amendment because of the distrust of power hungry people being attracted to positions of power.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
The feds are supreme ONLY carrying out their constitutionally assigned duties in a constitutional manner no matter what branch they are in. The states are supreme EVERY time EXCEPT when the feds are carrying out their constitutionally assigned duties in a constitutional manner that conflict with the states such as dealing with foreign affairs which is assigned to the fed gov.
What backs up the 2nd Amendment, besides the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the sayings passed down from many of the framers and our forefathers? The assigned duties to the legislative branch and laws created for just that purpose.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it very clear that the US Constitution sets limits on those who serve within the federal government:
“… 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…”
Starting with the US Constitution and the assigned congressional duties, and some laws that the congress can be prosecuted under:
Clause 12: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.
The money that the congress has illegally spent beyond the lawfully allotted time of two years of supporting a “standing military” is Misappropriation of Funds:
“the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one’s own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person’s estate, or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another’s assets; a fiduciary duty. It is a felony, a crime punishable by a prison sentence”.
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years” is really straightforward, and no misunderstanding of the words can be used as an excuse for disobeying that duty. No standing army except in times of war, and ONLY the congress can declare *war. Any War declared by congress must be a lawful war the US military, our family members, are used to fight in. War cannot lawfully be “declared” against a tactic such as the “war against terror” or the “war against drugs”; both are not wars and not even the congress can declare a war against a tactic.
(*War defined: ‘Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations)
Another duty (Clause 15) requires the congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and REPEL INVASIONS”.
This clause is very straightforward also. The militia of each state is taxed with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required by the supreme law of THIS land to provide those military grade weapons for the militias.
If that is not enough to show that a standing army being funded beyond two years and militia’s used instead is found in Clause 16 which also makes clear that the ARMING OF THE MILITIA OF EACH STATE is a duty the congress is REQUIRED to carry out:
“To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.
The US Congress is under the lawful obligation by the supreme law of this land to arm each state’s militia with the type of arms that will “repel invasions”- the same arms as the modern military uses. Each state has the duty to train the militia in the proper use of those arms.
If that is still not enough to convince one that we are to use militias instead of “standing armies” to defend our nation when necessary:
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.
Because the congress (legislative branch) has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal – which is using PRIVATE citizens (militia) in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, not just each state.
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….” Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress.
James Madison, Father of the US Constitution warned: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare”.
We are living with that truth today.
The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.
The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.
The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.
They are bound by their Oath to support the US Constitution. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.
The words that make this a contract besides the Preamble to the US Constitution:
Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited. The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
.
Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”
Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.
Consideration: “Consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.”
Require, Requirement, Required: Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. “To claim or ask for by right and authority; That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”
Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.”
Other laws that apply:
5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take before assuming office.
5 U.S.C. 3333 requires the three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law.
18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
42 USC § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights…
This might also apply here:
28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism: “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
“Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Art IV Sec 2, Clause 14 says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”.
Then there is treason, in Tucker’s Blackstone Vol. 1 Appendix Note B [Section 3] 1803 – “If in a limited government the public functionaries exceed the limits which the constitution prescribes to their powers, every such act is an act of usurpation in the government, and, as such, treason against the sovereignty of the people.”
Tucker’s Blackstone Volume 1 — Appendix Note D [Section 10 — Powers of Congress (cont.)]
13. Congress have power to declare the punishment of treason, against the United States; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted. C. U. S. Art. 3. Sec. 3. The act of 1 Cong. 2 Sess. c. 9. accordingly declares, that the punishment shall be death, by hanging; and that no conviction or judgment for treason, shall work any forfeiture of estate.
I highly recommend reading Edwin Vieira’s “Dare Call It Treason” which lays out exactly why disarming the populace, modifying or destroying the 2nd Amendment, or any of the Bill of Rights, of the USA is treason. Example from the book:
” Congress’s power and duty “to provide for arming the Militia” cannot include a self-contradictory license “to provide for disarming the Militia”. And, just as obviously, no other powers of Congress – such as the powers “to lay and collect Taxes” and “to regulate Commerce”, the two legalistic props usually invoked for “gun control” – can interfere with, let alone negate, the power “to provide for arming the Militia”, because:
(i) All constitutional powers are “of equal dignity” in all respects, such that none may ever be “enforced as to nullify or substantially impair [any] other”;
(ii) The Militia are State governmental institutions – as the Constitution describes them, “the Militia of the several States” – not any form of Commerce”; and
(iii) The General Government cannot impose a tax on any State, any State governmental institution, or the production, acquisition, possession, or use of any equipment necessary for the proper functioning thereof.”
Richard Henry Lee, Senator, 1st Congress: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee, Senator, 1st Congress : “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves … and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
John Adams, 2nd US President: “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe”
Samuel Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”:
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”.
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Justice Ginsberg’s function has become obsolete! Get rid of her!