Joe Biden made a very dangerous and foolish statement about Constitutional Amendments

When I saw articles such as this my blood began to boil Biden on the Second Amendment: ‘No amendment is absolute’.  The level of constitutional ignorance demonstrated by Joe Biden when he made this statement is quite staggering.  The fact that he is currently inhabiting the Oval Office and intends to govern by executive order made this statement exceedingly dangerous.

No amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” he said. “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — recall a freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.”

That statement is made up of several complete mistruths and a couple of half truths about the Second Amendment in particular and constitutional amendments in general.  A careful examination of the transcripts from the drafting of the Bill of  Rights in House of Representatives will prove just how wrong he is.. 

This  quote from June 8 of 1789 explains the general purpose of the Bill of Rights.  As you can see the Bill of Rights was specifically drafted to protect the most important rights of the people by denying the federal government the power and authority to regulate them in any way at all.  That prohibition on the federal government was in fact absolute.

But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. 

This quote from the drafting of the Bill of Rights in the Congress of the United States which was begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789 explains that several states demand that the Bill of Rights be added to the US Constitution to protect our most important rights by chaining the hands of the federal government

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 insure 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, namely,–

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.

This quote from the House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution August 17, 1789 by Elbridge Gerry informs us that the Second Amendment was added specifically so the people could deal with the federal government if it became abusive to the rights of the people of the United States.   A standing Army was believed by the drafters of the Constitution to be very much a threat to the liberty of the people.  Defense of the United States and the individual states was to be maintained by unorganized state militias made up of the people of the states. That can only be achieved if we the people have military weapons.  When the Bill of Rights was written and ratified all weapons held by the people were military weapons.

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

Mr. Gerry.–This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

It has been maintained by many revisionist historians, college professors, and liberal politicians that the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment was a formal military unit, the same as the modern National Guard.  George Mason put the kibosh to that mistruth during the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1787

I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.

Richard Henry Lee echoes this in Federal Farmer 18. The National Guard would be considered by Mr. Lee and the rest of the founding fathers to be a select militia rather than one made up of all of the people.

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. As a farther check, it may be proper to add, that the militia of any state shall not remain in the service of the union, beyond a given period, without the express consent of the state legislature,

The creation of the modern National Guard did not begin until the passing of the Militia Act of 1903.  At that time the National Gard was created as a select militia.  That is completely different from the unorganized militia that existed here well before the formal beginning of the United States.  The modern National Guard is the exact type of select militia that was warned against by Richard Henry Lee and the rest of the founding fathers.

No article or Amendment of the US Constitution prevents the states from regulating or interfering with our rights. Every state does however have a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the people living in the state,  I believe every state’s Bill of Rights protects the right to bear arms.  Here are the two articles of the Massachusetts Constitution that protect the right to bear arms of the inhabitants of this state.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Article XVII.  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

If no amendment to the Constitution is absolutely then the clause protecting us from double jeopardy can be taken away from us at the whim of the federal government along with trial by jury, and due process.  Slavery could be reinstated if the Thirteenth Amendment is not absolute.  That is extremely scary.

My WNBA Draft Question

I understand the WNBA draft is today and I have a question:

If a NCAA player who played in the men’s tourney, say a low level NBA prospect publicly defines himself as a woman is he/she eligible for the WNBA draft?

If not why not?

I imagine a player who has no chance at the NBA and looking at a regular job having a huge incentive to do so but that’s just me?

Today is “Everybody Blog About Rebekah Jones” Day

Unlike WJJ Hoge and Stacy McCain I know little about her except what they’ve dug up bur what I’ve seen has “grift” written all over it.

In an internet age such moves have a definite disadvantage because while the MSM will always cover for grift from the left that supports their narrative there are too many outlets that can expose it and despite the advantages of having the tech giants on their side you can’t completely shut out or shut up everyone, which is why such days are important as a disincentive for those who would follow that path.

But of more significance to me personally is this.

In my daily prayers I daily offer the 4th Glorious Mystery of my 1st Rosary for “Stacy’s women” which I define as the various women feminists, cranks, crazy people etc that Stacy McCain brings to our attention on his blog.

I suspect few of these people are subject of anyone’s prayers and while we rightly call out behavior that might be outrageous dishonorable or both we must not neglect to call upon God’s mercy for such people always remembering that if we had encountered Saul of Tarsus, Matthew the Tax Collector or Mary Magdalene on the day before they were touched by Christ we might be inclined to have an “Everybody blog about Saul of Tarsus” day.

Never doubt the infinite mercy of God, nor that each of us need it ourselves and should never begrudge it for others.

Twitter Imitates Yes Minister on Fraud.

Yesterday I wrote about the new law in NH and quoted the governor’s office’s tweet on the subject:

But the real story was how Twitter treated this tweet from the governor’s office I screen captured it just in case:

No replies are automatically show and Twitter automatically is hiding the replies given.

So what kind of offensive replies are there. Do we haven nudity?, profanity? Racism?

Yup that’s it.

Twitter’s reluctance to allow replies to this and thus risk the spreading of this story bring to mind this exchange from the Yes Minister Christmas special when the Head of the foreign office who is looking to be Prime Minister is asked about financial issues that he’s been made aware of:

Duncan: Where did you get all this?

Minster James Hacker: I’m sorry Duncan but if you’re in the run for PM I’ll should feel obliged to share what I know with senior party members. You see if it should all come out in the open there would would have to be a full inquiry from inland revenue, the fraud squad. Of course none of this need matter if it’s all above board as you say it is. And I’m sure it is if you say so.

Duncan: [pauses looking worried]: There was nothing improper!

Minster James Hacker: Oh good so that means I can feel free to talk about it all, bring it all out in the open.

Duncan: Hold on! Financial matters can be misinterpreted people get hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Minster James Hacker: Naturally.

Duncan: Look Jim I’m not sure that I want number ten. The foreign office is a better job in many ways.

Yes Minister: Party Games 1984

The good folks at twitter, CNN, facebook et/all all insist that the last presidential election is completely above board and that anyone who suggests otherwise is some sort of conspiracy theorist. Yet when the governor of a state won by Democrats in 2016 and 2020 signs a law allowed a full audit of ballots in a single county that show irregularities and said governor’s office tweets it out, they do all they can to retard the ability of people to see replies to said tweet.

If things are all above board wouldn’t all these folks trying to stop or suppress various audits welcome them to demonstrate once and for all how honest the election actual was?

Or as I’ve put it many times before:

I’ll believe that all the talk about Election 2020 being stolen is just a conspiracy theory when the pols, companies and tech giants who keep insisting that any such suggestion is just a conspiracy theory stop acting like members of a conspiracy to keep evidence that the last election was stolen a secret