In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson laid down what he believed were the essential principles of the American government. As you prepare to go to the polls, ask yourself which, if any, of the candidates for whom you are about to vote believe these principles at all, must less believe in them as “essential principles.”
Bastille Day is a French national holiday that marks the storming of the Bastille prison on July 14, 1789, an event that’s touted as the beginning of the French revolution, though revolutionary sentiment had been building for some time.
On that day, angry Parisians stormed the prison – seen as a symbol of a despotic monarchy and oppression of the starving peasantry by the ruling class – and after a bloody battle started by 300 revolutionaries, a growing mob captured the building, released its seven inmates and seized and murdered the governor.
The Bastille was originally a medieval fortress built in the 1370 to defend Paris from England during the 100 Years War. It became a state prison 1417. It was still a prison 372 years later under King Louis XVI, who used it to hold his opponents, many of whom were incarcerated there for years without trial.
The Ninth Circuit Circus Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 on June 10 that the 2nd Amendment never protected the right to carry concealed weapons. Of course it did until the 1840s, when state courts began restricting concealed carry, arguing that the right to carry was not being infringed if one could carry openly.
The majority on the 9th Circus determined that the California concealed-carry permit law – the state’s law requiring concealed carry permit petitioners show “good cause” to receive a permit was the law being challenged – did not infringe on Californians’ 2nd Amendment rights because the 2nd Amendment does not include the right to carry concealed.
So Californians should just carry openly, then.
But laws that require a person “show cause” to exercise a right are capricious and arbitrary. They do nothing to deter criminals from carrying weapons in secret and make criminals out of people who have no criminal intent.
A great debate has erupted in the wake of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing. Should the undocumented usurper currently despoiling the People’s House nominate a replacement for Scalia? And if he does, should the senate consider him or her, or should it defer until next year after the lame duck president is replaced?
That the appointment of one man in a nation of more than 323 million people has created such a hue and cry and further divided the country along partisan lines is a testament to how far removed the U.S. is from a republican form of government.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Williams C. Jarvis, wrote that “[T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions… would place under the despotism of an oligarchy.” And an oligarchy — a small group of people having control of a country – is where we find ourselves today, as evidenced by recent Supreme Court rulings that have overturned the will of the people.
Many of us saw it coming a long time ago — increasing confrontation between liberty proponents and the corrupt federal establishment leading to increasing calls by political elites and bureaucrats to apply to American citizens the terrorism countermeasures designed for foreign combatants. It was only a matter of time and timing.
My stance has always been that the elites would wait until there was ample social and political distraction; a fog of fear allowing them to move more aggressively against anti-globalists. We are not quite there yet, but the ground is clearly being prepared.
Economic uncertainty looms large over our fiscal structure today, more so even than in 2008. Global instability is rampant, with Europe at the forefront as mass migrations of “refugees” invade wholesale. At best, most of them intend to leach off of the EU’s already failing socialist welfare structure while refusing to integrate or respect western social principles. At worst, a percentage of these migrants are members of ISIS with the goals of infiltration, disruption and coordinated destruction.
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” — U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1.
A small group of congresscritters have realized what many of us have been saying for years — that congress has ceded its powers to the president, the myriad alphabet soup government agencies and the bureaucratic class — and are now undertaking an effort at “congressional rehabilitation.”
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Wednesday announced he’s launched an initiative he’s describing as a “network of House and Senate conservatives working together on a new agenda of government reform” that “focuses on congressional rehabilitation,” based on the original powers vested in Congress by Article I of the Constitution.
Constitutional governance; what a concept.
During a Wednesday Senate hearing Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) schooled Secretary of State John Kerry and other top administration officials on how Constitutional separation of government power is supposed to work in the United States.
The Kentucky lawmaker’s remarks were likely prompted by Kerry’s earlier criticism of the 47 senators who signed an open letter warning Iranian leaders that any plan worked out with the administration would have to pass congressional muster.
“To write to the leaders in the middle of a negotiation… to write them and suggest that they’re going to give a constitutional lesson, which by the way was absolutely incorrect, is quite stunning,” Kerry had said. “This letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of American foreign policy.”
Paul wasn’t impressed and took a few minutes during a conversation on Obama’s latest request to use military force against the Islamic State to explain to Kerry why the administration is wrong.