Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Constitution As A Whole - Not In Parts.

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    Constitution As A Whole - Not In Parts John Wolfram, your reasoning below sounds just like mine to the Second Amendment People. Last Thursday Barb and I went
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 23, 2000
    • 0 Attachment

       

      Constitution As A Whole - Not In Parts

       
          John Wolfram, your reasoning below sounds just like mine to the Second Amendment People. Last Thursday Barb and I went to the S.A.S. (Second Amendment Society) in which J.J. Johnson was the featured speaker. As you may know, he is a noted militia leader and editor of the Sierra Times on the Internet. (Previously he was out here in L.A. and indicated a desire to meet me, which did not then occur.) I thought this a good opportunity for us to meet in person Thursday.
          Anyway, he got up and delivered a very good presentation on how they are reaching the masses through the Internet, the timing being about parallel to that of JAIL on the Internet, i.e., approx. 7 months.
          As the host came walking past me at our table, I asked him if there were any chance that I may make an announcement, to which he replied, "Sure."  After J.J. finished and a couple others stood up to speak their mind, I got my shot at the audience. Everyone had directed their effort at the legislature.
          When I got up I challenged them with the words, "Why fight your enemies who oppose your right to bear arms when you can garner their support?" I said, "Your problem is not a legislative one, but a  judicial one." To prove my point I asked, "How many of you believe all these anti-guns laws are unconstitutional?" Everyone raised their hands. I then said, "Then why doesn't someone just go into court and challenge these laws based upon the Constitution? To which the response was, "We have." I then asked, "Well, then why are we still here arguing we have these rights? Why haven't we laid this issue to rest?" They then recognized that I was laying the blame at the feet of our courts.
          Although I didn't get to develop my theme due to lack of time,  but my direction would have been to ask them if they thought the Second Amendment was good law. (Obvious answer - "Yes"). Now if we get these good legislators in office, (we had a number of political candidates in the audience) what is it that we want these good legislators to do? (Anticipated answer - "Write good gun laws.") Now wait a minute, I thought I just heard you say that the Second Amendment was a good law! Are you saying a good law passed by a good legislature would be superior to the Second Amendment? ("No - We just want to make it clearer.") Oh, so what I am hearing now is that the Second Amendment is confusing to the judges and they just don't understand it when you argue your case for the Second Amendment, so you want to write good laws so the judges will understand it, is that correct? (Response???) So actually, you think the Second Amendment is confusing? ("No"). If you say it is not confusing, then why can't the judges understand it? Would it not be possible, and even likely, that the judges would also not "understand" any good gun law that could be written?
          I told them that when they aim for judicial accountability to the Constitution, not the "Second Amendment," even their enemies will  support their cause. And with the support of their enemies for judicial accountability to the Constitution, judges will be accountable to the First Amendment; the Second Amendment; the Third Amendment; the Fourth Amendment, etc., as the Constitution must be accepted as a whole, not in parts."
          I think I should write a treaties directed to the Second Amendment people on how they are all shooting at the wrong target. Don't fight you enemy, get them to support you. Of course, I know this presentation runs counter to all the efforts of every gun group in the entire country. And I further noticed that no one came up to shake my hand in approval, nor did anyone say, "I agree with you." I wonder if they learned anything at all. It is my judgment that they didn't, and that they will go on arguing they have rights under the Second Amendment and seeking good legislators to elect. "He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear."
       
      -Ron-

      J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
      JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
      JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
      JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
      JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      Use header to subscribe or to remove: jail4judges@...
      All E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at jail4judges@egroups.com
       
      "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
       
      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
      ___________________________________________________
       
       
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.