But What Did They Mean?

“From the fruit of their lips people enjoy good things, but the unfaithful have an appetite for violence.” ~Pro. 13:2

“The righteous hate what is false, but the wicked make themselves a stench and bring shame upon themselves.” ~Pro. 13:5

“The Judicial power does not include a right to change the Constitution” ~John Marshall

There has been a great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the last couple of weeks, regarding two decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court. Two of those decisions in particular have made many on the left very angry. First among them to be released was New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. This one basically declared New York State’s Conceal Carry Law to be Unconstitutional.

The second one, and indeed the one that they seem to be most angered by, is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This decision essentially reverses Roe v. Wade.

The media and Politicians on the left have repeatedly (and loudly) implied that this would ban abortion and force women into some sort of slavery, among other predictions of gloom and despair. Fear mongering at it’s finest.

I want to take a minute to touch on some background here. Contrary to popular media, News outlets and politicians; Abortions were not universally banned in the United States. Some states allowed abortions, some states banned abortions and some states had varying degrees of restrictions placed upon when a woman could seek an abortion. Roe did NOT say that abortion was legal with no restrictions. It did state that a woman had a right to an abortion based on it’s read of Due Process rights and Privacy provisions. This decision did NOT say that the right was absolute or that it was unrestricted. It made provisions for reasonable restrictions based on needs.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom the left has elevated to some kind of saint, said that she found the decision troubling and predicted it would be overturned. She also said that it was likely overreaching. Prior to Roe, the decision was properly left to the various states.

The 9th Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Tenth Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by is to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.”

These two amendments make it abundantly clear that Abortion is for the states to decide. The founders were clear that rights that were not enumerated were for the States and People to decide. What the Dobbs decision does is return the issue to the States and the People to decide for themselves…as it always should have been.

Many States, such as California, New York and Oregon are never likely to ban Abortion in the foreseeable future. Some will severely limit or ban the practice except under certain specific circumstances, and some will restrict it to varying degrees in between, and some will allow it with little if any restriction.

Now, let’s review the Bruen decision. In the State of New York, a person applying for a Concealed Carry License must first show ‘Proper Cause’ to obtain one. This severely limited who could carry a firearm for protection as New York does not allow for open carry.

The Sullivan Act of 1911 required that a person wishing to carry concealed must first demonstrate a need in order to be given a license to do so. Leaving aside the history of that act, in summary, what it does is to reduce an enumerated right to a privilege. Historically, SCOTUS has not supported such measures, because, when you must first prove a need to exercise a right, it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege that can be taken away.

To put it in historical context, the founders understood that there exists a difference between rights and privileges. A right is inherent and natural. It is something that can not be taken away. A privilege is something that is granted and thus can be taken away. This is made clear in the Declaration of independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…”

So, one doesn’t need to look far to find the distinction. There was a reason the first ten amendments are called ‘The Bill of Rights’. They are a limitation on Government and the language is clear in each one.

Because of these two decisions, the left has fallen all over themselves to renew their calls to expand (read pack) the Supreme Court and end the Filibuster. There have been calls to impeach Justices Kavanaugh and Comey-Barret, a petition to removed Justice Thomas and even calls to criminally prosecute Justices Kavanaugh and Comey-Barret for Perjury…The list just goes on.

Many have opined at length about how the founders did not intend the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right, how they couldn’t imagine an AR-15 and that they intended it for Muskets only. This goes all the way to President Silver Alert’s famous “You couldn’t buy a cannon”. Remember this?

Joe Biden says the 2nd Amendment was not absolute and that you couldn’t own a cannon.

This has led to many calls for some kind of reform for the supreme court. Senator Elizabeth ‘Feauxcahontas’ Warren and Pramila Jayapal, along with some of their colleagues have called for new ‘Ethics Rules’ for SCOTUS.

“I’ve been fighting to reform our judicial ethics system for years. At a time when public trust in the Supreme Court has collapsed to historic lows, it’s critical that we enact legislation to reform this broken system. From banning federal judges from owning individual stocks to overhauling the broken judicial recusal process, my bill would help root out corruption and restore public trust in the federal judiciary – something that Chief Justice Roberts has simply failed to do”

~Elizabeth Warren (https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-jayapal-colleagues-introduce-bill-to-reform-broken-judicial-ethics-system)

Many on the left are calling to expand the court (Again, Read: Packing the Court). All of this takes place amid a background of many ridiculing the notion of Originalist Judges.

Now, I will leave the many arguments about the Abortion debate in the context of history to those more qualified and knowledgeable. I will state that while there is no enumerated right to an abortion, it is still for the states to decide as it falls under the 9th.

However, there is an enumerated right to Keep and Bear Arms and it has ALWAYS been and should remain, an individual right.

When I hear people making foolish and laughable claims about the failure of imagination argument, I treat them with scorn and ridicule. This is for good reason. The founders were well aware of advances in Technology. They knew that arms would continue to be improved upon and become more accurate and efficient.

As for owning a cannon, well, private citizens have and continue to own artillery today. Whether it’s Ben Franklin’s 12 pounders, privateers under a Letter of Marque, to private citizens today that own modern field howitzers and tanks. The Second Amendment said ‘arms’. Not Swords, not muskets, but Arms.

Tenche Cox said, “Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth right of an American.”

Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms”

Finally, I come to this…The stupidity that prompted me to write this article today.

Sen. Hirono claiming “who the heck would know what our founding fathers meant?”

To say that originalists ‘pretend’ to know what the founders meant, because “Who the heck would know what the founding fathers meant?” is absurd.

Are you for real, Sen. Hirono? You, Mazie Hirono, are a United States Senator and you don’t know that our founding fathers left us a plethora of information. From their speeches, their letters, their essays and yes, even the Federalist Papers, they left us voluminous sources explaining precisely what they meant and intended when they wrote the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Your ignorance of this, the fact it’s clear that you’ve never bothered to read their words, yet you sit as a Senator, is troubling at best, and I’m being overly generous with that. Not only does it show your deep ignorance for the founding of our nation but your foolishness for not having done any research on the matter. It’s deeply disturbing and in my opinion, disqualifies you from holding that office.

In conclusion, every American owes it to themselves and their countrymen to learn about our founders. They must learn their motivations and thoughts. They must learn from our history what these men endured and why. Why they set up our republic in the way that they did and why they warned us to guard our liberties jealously, lest we find ourselves, once again, repeating history and fighting for the very liberties they sacrificed so much to leave for us.