SOTOMAYOR: YOUR BILL OF NO RIGHTS
Carl F. Worden
wolfeyes@clearwire.net
Okay, so now we know how the game is being played with the "unalienable rights" you assumed you had under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.
Actually, you really do have all those rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, but the lower federal courts came up with a legal scheme to strip you of them under your state government's authority. The scam is that somebody came up with the bright idea that for all citizens to be protected by the federal constitutional Bill of Rights, those rights must be "incorporated" to the states, forcing the states to recognize them for their citizens. Otherwise, the scam goes on, your state can deny you any of the rights enumerated under the Bill of Rights that are not "incorporated" to the states, and the Second Amendment, according to that low-life piece of s*** Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, is not one of them.
Confused a bit? Yeah, so was I until I carefully digested what Sotomayor was telling the Senate panel.
Now we all know that the entire Bill of Rights was intended by the Framers to extend to all citizens of the United States, no matter what state they reside in. It would be preposterous for anyone to believe the Bill of Rights protects only those citizens under direct federal authority -- as in the District of Columbia, but that is how this scam is being applied. According to the scam, each of the guarantees under the Bill of Rights must be legally "incorporated" to all the states, and if any one of them has not been "incorporated" to the states, the states are free to infringe on those rights, or even deny them!
In answer to the senators' questions, Sonia Sotomayor stated quite clearly that the right to free speech, freedom of religion and the freedom of assembly, etc. had already been "incorporated" to the states by federal rulings, but that no legal opinion or ruling had "incorporated" the Second Amendment to the states, so the states had the individual right to deny their citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I kid you not!
I ask anyone reading this to carefully read the Constitution to see if the Judicial Branch is given the power under the Constitution to decide which of the Bill of Rights should be "incorporated" to the states. Such authority does not exist! There isn't even a procedural gimmick in the Constitution that allows the Judicial Branch to decide whether a state should be ordered to guarantee its citizens the protections of any one or all of the protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but that is exactly the premise Sonia Sotomayor stated as clear as day, and a lot of really stupid constitutional "scholars" agree with her.
Article X of the Bill of Rights states that the powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution -- including the Judicial Branch -- are reserved to the states and the people. The Judicial Branch has apparently created a power for itself (an illegal power) to force the states to guarantee their citizens protections under the Bill of Rights for certain parts of the Bill of Rights, while not forcing the states to guarantee their citizens protections under other parts of the Bill of Rights -- and if you are confused by what I just wrote it is because they wanted it to be as confusing as possible. It's a con job.
According to this absurd legal theory (scam) the states have the power to deny some of your basic protections under the Bill of Rights, individually by state, if the federal courts have not ordered the states to "incorporate" that particular right to all state citizens. Again, I kid you not!
This is the contrived basis used by the lower federal court that just ruled the City of Chicago could continue to ban citizens from owning handguns, even thought the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller Decision affirmed the right of Washington DC citizens to own handguns under the Second Amendment. Why? Well according to the ruling, the citizens of Washington DC were automatically guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms because they are directly under federal authority, but the City of Chicago, and the State of Illinois, had the authority to deny their citizens the right and bear arms because the Second Amendment had not yet been "incorporated" to all the states -- including Illinois.
I hope you understand what we are dealing with now. The Framers clearly intended for all United States citizens to be protected equally under the Bill of Rights no matter what state they reside in, but some slimy, slithery scumbags in robes came up with the premise that the states had the right to deny some or all of those basic Bill of Rights if the states had not been ordered to extend them to their citizens by an existing federal judicial ruling.
And they might wonder why we're buying guns and ammunition by the truckload?
wolfeyes@clearwire.net
Okay, so now we know how the game is being played with the "unalienable rights" you assumed you had under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.
Actually, you really do have all those rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, but the lower federal courts came up with a legal scheme to strip you of them under your state government's authority. The scam is that somebody came up with the bright idea that for all citizens to be protected by the federal constitutional Bill of Rights, those rights must be "incorporated" to the states, forcing the states to recognize them for their citizens. Otherwise, the scam goes on, your state can deny you any of the rights enumerated under the Bill of Rights that are not "incorporated" to the states, and the Second Amendment, according to that low-life piece of s*** Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, is not one of them.
Confused a bit? Yeah, so was I until I carefully digested what Sotomayor was telling the Senate panel.
Now we all know that the entire Bill of Rights was intended by the Framers to extend to all citizens of the United States, no matter what state they reside in. It would be preposterous for anyone to believe the Bill of Rights protects only those citizens under direct federal authority -- as in the District of Columbia, but that is how this scam is being applied. According to the scam, each of the guarantees under the Bill of Rights must be legally "incorporated" to all the states, and if any one of them has not been "incorporated" to the states, the states are free to infringe on those rights, or even deny them!
In answer to the senators' questions, Sonia Sotomayor stated quite clearly that the right to free speech, freedom of religion and the freedom of assembly, etc. had already been "incorporated" to the states by federal rulings, but that no legal opinion or ruling had "incorporated" the Second Amendment to the states, so the states had the individual right to deny their citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I kid you not!
I ask anyone reading this to carefully read the Constitution to see if the Judicial Branch is given the power under the Constitution to decide which of the Bill of Rights should be "incorporated" to the states. Such authority does not exist! There isn't even a procedural gimmick in the Constitution that allows the Judicial Branch to decide whether a state should be ordered to guarantee its citizens the protections of any one or all of the protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but that is exactly the premise Sonia Sotomayor stated as clear as day, and a lot of really stupid constitutional "scholars" agree with her.
Article X of the Bill of Rights states that the powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution -- including the Judicial Branch -- are reserved to the states and the people. The Judicial Branch has apparently created a power for itself (an illegal power) to force the states to guarantee their citizens protections under the Bill of Rights for certain parts of the Bill of Rights, while not forcing the states to guarantee their citizens protections under other parts of the Bill of Rights -- and if you are confused by what I just wrote it is because they wanted it to be as confusing as possible. It's a con job.
According to this absurd legal theory (scam) the states have the power to deny some of your basic protections under the Bill of Rights, individually by state, if the federal courts have not ordered the states to "incorporate" that particular right to all state citizens. Again, I kid you not!
This is the contrived basis used by the lower federal court that just ruled the City of Chicago could continue to ban citizens from owning handguns, even thought the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller Decision affirmed the right of Washington DC citizens to own handguns under the Second Amendment. Why? Well according to the ruling, the citizens of Washington DC were automatically guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms because they are directly under federal authority, but the City of Chicago, and the State of Illinois, had the authority to deny their citizens the right and bear arms because the Second Amendment had not yet been "incorporated" to all the states -- including Illinois.
I hope you understand what we are dealing with now. The Framers clearly intended for all United States citizens to be protected equally under the Bill of Rights no matter what state they reside in, but some slimy, slithery scumbags in robes came up with the premise that the states had the right to deny some or all of those basic Bill of Rights if the states had not been ordered to extend them to their citizens by an existing federal judicial ruling.
And they might wonder why we're buying guns and ammunition by the truckload?
posted by Chuck Demastus at 10:10 PM
2 Comments:
This is just another example of the ongoing fraud that our government in all three branches has become.
Instead of the branches "checking" each of the others to prevent tyranny as was the constitutional design, there has been a tacit agreement among them for many years to cooperate in denying Americans their basic constitutionally guaranteed rights and make them subservient to (and dependant upon) the federal government, its various agencies and bureaucracies.
Thus, there no longer is any branch of government - even at the state level - where a citizen can go for justice. It's all one big con game which is becoming more and more obvious as their power has now grown to the point at which the folks in Washington no longer have to "play" at representing the poor suckers at home.
Within a few months or at most, a year, unless there is a miracle (or a revolution) we shall see what little remains of our freedoms gone or so diluted as to be useless, our healthcare destroyed, our freedom of speech removed and our vote as useless as Medieval maps.
Sadly, every eighth-grader in our public schools is being taught to believe in the whole 'checks and balances' fallacy, and those beliefs, once ingrained, are difficult to uproot. I confess my own ignorance on the matter was not exposed until just last year. But, oh, the absurdity of it! The federal government acting as a check on its own power?? It is time to bring back secession and nullification as real, viable alternatives.
Post a Comment
<< Home