Tag Archives: tyranny

Dred Scott was Settled Law Too.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s nominee to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, is certain to be questioned at length (and ultimately opposed no matter her answers) over the issue of abortion. Just as slavery was America’s defining issue of the 1800’s, abortion will be our defining issue of the 20th and 21st centuries. Just as slavery was America’s original national sin that cost us a bloody civil war to extirpate, legalized abortion on demand is the terrible sin that may cost us even more dearly. If it is a terrible crime to put a man in chains, what can we say of the slaughter of more than sixty million unborn, innocent children?

“Roe v. Wade is settled law,” the Democrats like to say, and they will demand that any nominee for the Supreme Court assure them that it will remain settled law.

Precedent and the law. It is interesting how important the principle of stare decisis becomes once the Democrats have achieved their desired outcome. Prayer banned in public schools, gay marriage, abortion: the courts are the least democratic of our branches of government, but it is there that the Democrats have accomplished their most dramatic and corrosive transformations of American society. Transformations that they could not pass through the legislative process. Transformations that they do not intend to be reversed.

Roe v. Wade is bad law. It was literally made up, an exercise in creative thinking from the mind of liberal justices with no basis in the Constitution. But now it is settled law, the Democrats say, and may not be touched. So if the Supreme Court rules on something, that mean it is absolute, immutable, forever set in stone and no legislative or judicial process can ever change it.

Really? The people have no recourse whatsoever if SCOTUS speaks? That is absurd on its face. We are no more bound in slavery to a tyranny of nine unelected judges than we are to any branch of our government. What recourse do the people have through the democratic process?

First, legislative. Everyone seems to have forgotten, but we have three co-equal branches of government, and any two of them may overrule the third. Congress and the president have the power to remove an issue from the purview of the Supreme Court, and if that effort reaches an impasse (a runaway court tries to declare such an action by the other two branches”unconstitutional”) Congress may impeach if necessary. But a resort to such drastic measures would be one of those “constitutional crises” we’re always hearing about. The usual (supposedly) non-confrontational method of overturning a decision of the Supreme Court is as follows:

  • The people elect a president that will appoint justices who see things differently.
  • The people elect a senate that will confirm the justices that their president nominates.
  • The people wait for vacancies on the court to provide their president the chance to act.

This process can take decades, and when the lives of sixty million or so unborn children are the price of the patience it demands, it is especially unfortunate that the people, the president and the congress were unable to muster the courage or conviction necessary to restrain and overturn the corrupt decision immediately. But the fact that it took decades for the will of the people to move does not somehow render the original flawed decision immutable. If the people cannot in any way reverse a bad decision of the court through the legal processes of government, then we truly do live under a tyranny, and the only remedy is the one prescribed by the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

Is this what the Democrats are suggesting? That the only way the American people can overcome stare decisis is to overthrow their government and start over?

No, Roe v. Wade is “settled law” just like the Dred Scott decision was settled law. It is settled until it is reversed.

The Nature of Compromise

In grammar school I was taught that our system of government is based on compromise. That’s not true, but that’s what I was taught. Compromise is fine, but there is something you have to understand about it. You cannot compromise with someone whose ultimate goal is diametrically opposed to yours.

For instance, let’s say you and your friend are going on vacation together. You both want to go to the beach, but you want to get there as fast as possible and he/she wants to take the cross-country scenic route. Perhaps you can travel part of the way on the Interstate and part of the way on the secondary roads, and you both wind up where you ultimately wanted to be. But suppose you want to go to the beach and he/she wants to go to the mountains. You compromise and travel part-way toward the beach, and then turn off and go to the mountains. When you get there, you suddenly realize that your friend got what he/she wanted and you got nothing.

That’s where we are with the “gun control” debate. Thanks to Beto, everyone can now see where the democrats have been wanting to take us for fifty years, but everyone is still crying out for compromise on this issue. Democrats, when asked straight up if they agree with Beto on confiscation, hedge, dip and dodge. They use phrases like, “we’ve got to do something now,” and “starting place” and “first steps” and “what is achievable.” What they are saying is that they know they can’t get confiscation right now, but if they can get us to compromise and move in that direction a little, they will be patient and come back for more after the next mass shooting.

Make no mistake: no matter how much they may deny it and claim to be “firm supporters of the Second Amendment,” confiscation of all privately held firearms is their ultimate goal. Why is disarming the population so important to them? Because you can’t make a tyranny without it. Compromise is just another word for slow defeat. In the end, we will either defeat the enemies of freedom or be defeated by them.

My Response To Beto

My sincere thanks to Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, who finally admitted what most of us have known all along. Hell yes, they want to take our AR-15s and AK-47s!

And when that doesn’t work and the violence continues, they will be back for our other semi-automatics, pump-actions, bolt-actions, revolvers and anything else that goes bang and could put a hole in a would-be tyrant.

You cannot compromise with someone whose end goal is diametrically opposed to yours. You can only defeat them, or be defeated by them. So here is my response to Mr. O’Rourke:

The Second Thing About the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that TOO MANY Americans Simply Do Not Understand

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not about hunting, target shooting or even defending your life or your home. Although these pursuits are certainly protected by that same right, they are not what the founding fathers had in mind when they talked about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Now we are constantly hearing about “military assault-type weapons” and “weapons of war,” and too often I hear gun owners and self-proclaimed supporters of the Second Amendment declare that “no one needs an AR-15 or AK-47!” And one democratic candidate for president finally just admitted it: “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”

The intent of the Second Amendment’s writers is clearly demonstrated in the use of the phrase: A well-regulated militia. The word “militia” comes from the same roots as military and militant and that means fighting wars. Of course, many have tried to define the term “well regulated militia” as the equivalent of today’s National Guard, but both history and just a little thought will inform even the most casual reader that this argument is spurious. The founders clearly wrote “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and nowhere in the constitution or any founders’ writings was the phrase the people used to describe anything other than the people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is nothing less than the right of American citizens to retain the means of overthrowing their government should it become necessary. Therefore, “military assault-type weapons” and “weapons of war” are exactly the kind of “arms” that the Second Amendment is talking about.