.
With all the hoopla over Sonia and the right to keep and bear arms, the question becomes elementary if we follow the wisdom of our founding fathers!

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

The answer to the question concerning the right to keep and bear arms is not that difficult to answer if one follows Jefferson’s above quote.

The simple truth is, after creating our federal Constitution which became effective in 1789, ten amendments were quickly adopted [1791] which were intentionally designed “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of “ the new government’s “powers“, and is so stated in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

Whatever the reason for each State’s ratification of the 2nd Amendment, whether it be for the people’s right to keep and bear arms or to maintain a state militia, or even merely to preserve the individual’s right to self defense is unimportant when one considers the irrefutable object for the amendment which was to further restrict the newly created government, prevent misconstruction of the Constitution of the United States, and prevent specific abuses by the hand of the federal government:

Quote: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 .

In regard to fundamental rights and protections of these rights within the various states, let us take a look at what the people, for example, of the State of Pennsylvania, agree upon with respect to two issues before our federal government was even created, and did so in their State’s fundamental law otherwise known as Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776

Quote:III. That the people of this State have the sole, exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

So, as it turns out with respect to Pennsylvania, documented history tells us the people therein decided to protected themselves from specific abuses in the exercise of state government power, and, by the adoption of the 2nd Amendment they went on to specifically forbid the federal government to “infringe” upon the people’s already established right in the State of Pennsylvania “to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State”.

In short and simple language, the 2nd Amendment in our federal Constitution is a prohibition upon our federal government, nothing more, and has nothing to do with the reserved powers of the State of Pennsylvania as enumerated in its Constitution and Declaration of Rights.

It’s ironic that the same thinking which gave us Roe vs.Wade, that the federal government has jurisdiction over the lives of the unborn within our respective States, is the same thinking that the 2nd Amendment grants jurisdiction to the federal government within the various States over the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If the federal government has the power to legislate over the mater within a State‘s borders, or regulate the ownership of firearms within the various State borders, they likewise have the power to legislate the right into extinction just as they have done with various state laws which once protected the unborn against unfettered abortions but were overturned by Roe vs.Wade along with federalism, our Constitution‘s plan.

Our Constitution’s plan is designed to preclude the accumulation of power by the federal government over the reserved powers of the States, and/or, those powers reserved by the people therein. While I associate myself with those who correctly understand the right to keep and bear arms for self defense is an undeniable unalienable right, I also understand the important intentions of our founding fathers, that establishing a federalist system is the safest path in preserving that unalienable right.

Unfortunately, federalism also carries with it responsibilities requiring the friends of liberty to actively participate in the doings of their federal, State, and local Legislatures in order to preserve and protect the blessings of liberty, which were handed to us on a silver platter by those who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor in securing those blessings, and were intended to be passed on to each succeeding generation.

Having stated the above, I must now say that Sonia Sotomayor is absolutely correct when she suggests the 2nd Amendment applies to the federal government and not the States as was done in the panel decision she was a part of which involved Maloney v. Cuomo and a 1896 S.C. decision saying “The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,”


The notion that the 14th Amendment was adopted to make our Constitution’s first ten amendments applicable to the States and grant the federal government jurisdiction to enter the states to enforce its “interpretations” as was done in Roe vs.Wade, is a notion dreamed up by “progressives” to pave the way for an absolute power being created in Washington, D. C. over the States which is intended to touch every subject matter mentioned in our federal Constitution’s first ten amendments, and would supercede the people’s rights as they have declared them in their State Declarations of Rights.

Let us not mimic our domestic enemies who ignore the legislative intent of our written constitutions, State and federal, and keep a jealous eye on preserving federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

As for Sonia Sotomayor and her nomination, only a domestic enemy would vote in favor of her nomination to the S.C. as she has willingly and knowingly trample upon the specific intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted, an amendment adopted to forbid the force of government being used to discriminate on the basis or race which was attempted in the firefighter’s case and Sonia Sotomayor closed her eyes to.

And what was the specific intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted as stated during the debates which framed the Amendment?

Quote:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ see: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

Every Senator who supports the nomination of Sotomayor would be aiding one who has worked to subjugate our written Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted when ruling in the firefighter’s case, and why I refer to them as domestic enemies.


Here are three DOMESTIC ENEMY RINOs who support trashing the 14th Amendment’s protection against racial discrimination: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Florida’s Sen. Mel Martinez!


Regards,

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.