Thanks!!!
Lynda

***********************************************

Re: The Constitution Supremacy 'All LAws Which....

Please post the following if you like.
*** *** ***

The Constitution is a Contract with the American People.

I think that what is most often overlooked is the fact that the Constitution is a “compact” meaning a contract or agreement and that just like any other contract it is subject to the same rules of contract law. And that under recognized and accepted contract law, an amendment to the original document bears more weight and exerts more force simply because the terms and the conditions of an amendment always "supersede" the terms and conditions of the original document. And this is true because the amendment acts to, and has the effect of, permanently altering and changing the original document. And so regardless of what can be argued to be contained within the original document, the Second Amendment overrides and makes clear that, "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall Not be infringed" was intended to be, and is in fact, a command directive to government, and that furthermore, it makes this "command directive" to government part of the supreme law of the land, and as such it shall continue to be the law of the land until such time as a change occurs via the passage of another constitutional amendment that specifically addresses and alters this provision. As just one example (there are several others) and a case in point, consider that in the early part of the Twentieth Century the 18th Amendment banned alcohol beverage consumption and made Prohibition the law of the land. And that even after everyone (including those in government) finally recognized Prohibition to have been a horrible mistake; it could not be easily undone via any act of the Congress nor with a presidential executive order. And so it was not until with the passage of the 21st Amendment that the era of Prohibition finally came to an end. The Rule of Law under our Constitution is very clear. Neither the Congress nor the President nor the US Supreme Court have the authority to alter or to change any of the provisions of the Constitution (or its amendments) as this can only be done via the amendment process... And so with respect to "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms" that is contained within the Second Amendment, this has NEVER been done and so the Second Amendment still to this day remains unchanged and unaltered and stands as originally written by the Founding Fathers. Furthermore, that as a result of the Second Amendment having never been changed or altered in any way, shape or form, "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed" remains as the Supreme Law of the Land throughout the United States of America!!!

It should be well understood that without a formal change to the provisions of the Second Amendment via the constitutional amendment process, that the government (inclusive of all three branches) lacks the authority to intervene or to intrude upon or to even attempt to reinterpret the meaning of, or to in any way infringe upon the Right of the people to keep and bear arms... regardless of what can be argued over what may or may not be authorized in the original document. In addition, let us not overlook the fact that government agencies and bureaucrats lack any legislative authority. And furthermore, we should not overlook the intent of the framers. When one examines the many great quotes left behind by the Founding Fathers regarding individual gun Rights, their intent in drafting the Second Amendment and incorporating it into the Constitution could not be made any clearer. So the idea of gun Rights having to be tied to or to depend upon and be subject to firearms having to meet the standard of having a so called “sporting use” is a direct and blatant insult to the memory of the Founding Fathers!

In truth, it is a very valid argument that can be made that the government totally and completely lacks the authority to regulate the firearms' industry!

There are of course as stated in the prior post a number of US Supreme Court cases that clearly recognize and support the argument that is briefly being made here. The Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause contained in the Constitution are what government uses to claim their authority in many of these fought over cases. But it can easily be shown that these parts of the Constitution are being misinterpreted and even adulterated. As an example, Article VI, Sec 2 is clearly a conditional statement as it says that with regard to U.S. law being the supreme law of the land that; "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;" - meaning of course that all US law must be made "in Pursuance thereof" with respect to the Constitution in order for any such laws to hold a place together with the Constitution as being the supreme law of the land. But regardless of what argument can be made in favor of government having its authority based on what is contained in the Constitution, the amendments over ride and “supersede” everything that came before the amendment.

The actions being taken by government are in fact unlawful and unconstitutional and furthermore, I believe that these unlawful actions have never been properly challenged to show that they (the government) are clearly not obeying the Rule of Law according to the dictates of our Constitution. And we must also never forget that oppression and tyranny are never far from an unarmed populace.

*********************************************