Problems are for Solving

A good write up on the decision from Cato:

Yes, California, There Is an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms Cato @ Liberty
Well, today the Ninth Circuit the federal appellate court covering most Western states ruled that the Second Amendment restricts the power of state and local governments to interfere with individual right to have guns for personal use.  That is, the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” the Second Amendment against the states, as the Supreme Court has found it to do for most of the Bill of Rights.  I rarely get a chance to say this, but the Ninth Circuit gets it exactly right.

Post 3 in the series. 1. 2.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This one might take several posts. Breaking it down:

Congress shall make no law:

• Respecting an establishment of religion
• Prohibiting the free exercise of religion
• Abridging the freedom of speech
• Abridging the freedom of the press
• Abridging the right of the people to assemble peaceably
• Abridging the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

   

“Congress shall make no law .” That means, if this is interpreted consistent with the meaning of words that we should be able to search the complete, current statutes of the United States Federal government and find no laws that attack or undermine any of these rights/freedoms. At least none that the Supreme Court did not over turn, right?

“shall make no law.”

Seems simple, doesn’t it? But alas, it is not.

Regarding the first of the prohibitions to Congress, I think they’ve done OK, in the narrow sense of the words. There is no national, state church. At least none that is called that. Congress has made no law that established a state religion.

What about the second part, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?” Has Congress made laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion? I believe they have. Congress has, through the Internal Revenue Code, told religious organizations that preachers cannot preach about particular issues and particular candidates, whether or not their religious views speak to them. For Christians, at least, this is problematic. Our religion informs every area of life, including the sphere of the state. We believe that Jesus is King over all nations, including ours, and that to not speak out, even from the pulpit, against tyranny is wrong. But to do so could bring the wrath of the state.

Congress also requires all employers to act as tax collectors. A church who believes that they should not do so is also punished by the state, sometimes to the point of having their building stripped away without cause.

“Shall make no law.” It’s worded as an absolute, but it has not been read that way by the court. And wait until next post when we get to freedom of speech!

Post 2 in the series. Post 1 here.

Here’s the preamble again:

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. 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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

 

The Bill of Rights limits Congress, at least ostensibly. It limits the ability of Congress to legally attack what the founders believed were rights given by God. Only Congress was empowered by the Constitution to make laws, and so by extension the Bill of Rights limits the entire Federal Government. I believe the intention was to limit all levels of the sphere of the state, but that isn’t something I’m going to try to prove here.

The main point is this: The Bill of Rights does not grant rights. It does NOT. It is a legal guarantee of the government’s lack of authority to trump the rights that are enumerated here. The rights do not come from the government. They come from God. (See my review of and read Bastiat’s The Law
here.) They exist whether or not the government believe they exist, and they exist whether or not the government recognizes they exist. That, at least, is what the founding fathers believed. And this document was adopted, “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.” The Bill of Rights was a protection against the United States government growing into a tyrannical monstrosity. And the following posts will discuss in what ways it has been misinterpreted in order to allow just that tyranny it was designed to protect against.

For his birthday, Toby received a copy of the role-playing game (RPG) Sons of Liberty. In playing the game, one player has to take the side of the tories (no choice, sorry) and the others play characters from the time period like Thomas Paine and John Adams. About the game:

The game’s fast-paced card mechanics ensure high-action madness and revolutionary heroics. If you are playing Benjamin Franklin and you aren’t swinging an electrified kite over your head to clear the streets of redcoats, then you are playing it wrong.

That’s the kind of game it is.

The tory is guided by card draws, 1 through 10, and his solution/tactic is essentially related to which of the first 10 amendments he’s violating in the attack. So I thought I’d re-familiarize myself with the Bill of Rights by writing a short blog post about each, and how it’s worked out so far in our nation’s relatively brief history.

Here’s the preamble:

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution

More to follow! But I make no guarantees for regularity.