The Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments

We have been exploring the Bill of Rights since Thursday of last week. We have made some important statements about these protections, particularly the First and Second Amendments in conjunction with the apparent efforts of the current administration and its supporters to at the very least, weaken those rights. While I do not want to ignore any of these Amendments, I do want to accelerate the process slightly so that we can get to a timely discussion on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The importance of which will be readily recognizable to anyone once the dicussion begins.

This is not to imply that the following three amendments are not as equally critical to the existence of a free nation, but these amendments, which are for the most part, self explanatory and with the exception of the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment, are rarely challenged.

I will say that the discussions we are to have on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments will overshadow these three only in their immediate connection to current flow of politics and to the efforts many States are now pursuing to reinforce these rights in the face of increasing pressure and interference by the Federal Government.

The Sixth Amendment

Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.
Ratified 12/15/1791.

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

It is a safe assumption that all Americans agree that the innocent should be free and the guilty should be punished. To insure justice to that end, the Sixth Amendment requires that all persons facing criminal prosecution do so in a fair and impartial way and that the trial that will determine a person’s guilt or innocence be held within a reasonable period of time.

In 1966 Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, determined that a public trial was not absolute and could be denied if the publicity associated with the trial would impact or prevent a fair and impartial verdict. While important, this case was related only to the right to a public trial and not a speedy one.

In many other justice systems innocence was not presumed and those facing charges also faced the reality that they were considered guilty until such time as their innocence could be established. The incarceration was harsh and the trials to establish guilt or innocence happened expressly at the convenience of the government, which could be years.

A measure to establish what is considered “speedy” had to be defined if this amendment were to have any meaning at all. Incredibly, it wasn’t until 1972 that a reasonable challenge had been made to the Supreme Court requiring that they rule on what measure should be used to determine if a person’s right to speedy trial had been violated. That case, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 alleged that the defendants right to a speedy trial had been violated and required a judgment from the court as to the exact definition of what would constitute a violation of law.

The court rendered a decision that the speed at which a trial should proceed must be determined by the facts in each individual case and did write four criteria with which the courts could base that determination on. Those four points are:

Delay:

1- Length of Delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right "attaches" (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed "presumptively prejudicial" (but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies.)

Reason for delay:

2- The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations.

3- Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant acquiesces to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.

4- Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.

The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioner, Willie Barker, in that he had previously waived his right to a speedy trial by agreeing to the continuances, and that the verdict was not prejudiced by the delays. However, the importance of this case is evident in the crafting of the four points that would determine the viability of future challenges to this Amendment.

The following year (1973), the Supreme Court heard the case of Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 in which these criteria were put to the test. The Supreme Court found in favor on the petitioner based on the four points established in Barker v. Wingo, and overturned a conviction obtained in his trial after it was determined that Strunk’s rights to a speedy trial had in fact been violated.

The Seventh Amendment

Trial by Jury in Civil Cases.
Ratified 12/15/1791.

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law”

Even where a legal, rather than an monetary , issue is in question, the judge has a role in the determination of the verdict. The Supreme Court has held that judges may render an opinion on the facts in dispute provided that the jury actually determines the dispute after deliberation. A judge may also direct the jury to pay special attention to certain evidence and require the jury to answer certain questions relating to the case in addition to giving a verdict. If the judge deems the plaintiff's evidence insufficient, he may direct the jury to find in the defendant's favor. The jury may, however, return a verdict contrary to the judge's direction.

As common law provided, the judge has the power to set aside (or nullify) a jury verdict that he deemed was reached contrary to the evidence or the law but common law precluded the judge from himself entering a verdict. Where a judge has nullified a verdict on these grounds, only a new trial with a new jury would be the only permissible course.

The Eighth Amendment

Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
Ratified 12/15/1791.

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

The Eighth Amendment is almost identical to a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, in which Parliament declared, "as their ancestors in like case have usually done...that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

In 1947 the Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment did, in fact apply to the individual States as well as to the Federal government.

While the 1878 Supreme Court did issue general prohibitions against a number of punishments including drawing and quartering, public dissecting, burning alive, or disemboweling, it would not be until 1972 (apparently a very busy year for the Supreme Court) that the court finally rendered a decision that spelled out, yet another four points that could be used to determine whether a punishment could be construed as cruel or unusual.

Those points are:

1- The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
2-"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
3- "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
4- "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

As far as the death penalty is concerned, the Supreme Court has had a mixed bag of decisions over the years. Some cases centered on the method used for execution and others in the actual imposition of a death penalty where the victim of the crime had not been killed such as in cases of rape.

The argument on the death penalty is a morally charged subject that is deeply contested where ever it is used. Instead of outlawing the practice entirely, The Supreme Court has instead, prohibited the use of language that would require a mandatory death sentence for certain crimes and has also required that special legal procedures be used to guarantee that capital crimes are pursued with great care and are scrupulously prosecuted. To meet this requirement, some States have opted to remove the duty of imposing the death sentence from the judge altogether and have instead, opted to hold two separate jury trials; one to determine guilt or innocence and upon conviction a second trial to determine the severity of the punishment ranging from imprisonment to execution.

I myself do not oppose the death penalty for certain crimes but we have all seen overzealous prosecutors that are more interested in a conviction than the truth. Case in point was the rape case involving the 2006 Duke University Lacrosse team. North Carolina District Attorney Mike Nifong ignored exculpatory evidence that would have cleared the Duke students of any wrongdoing and had continued to shape the actions of police and other persons involved in the case. Mr. Difong then aggressively pursued a false trial for what some have said was his goal to gain the notoriety that comes with winning a conviction in a highly publicized trial.

I would submit that some dangerous men just like Mike Nifong, still exist within the criminal justice system. With that in mind, only irrefutable physical evidence should allow us, a reasonable and civilized society, the certainty required to escort convicted criminals towards the death penalty regardless of the alleged crime. If we are to deprive one of thier life as the supreme form of punishment, we must be deadly sure that there is no mistake in how that conviction was obtained. We must be sure that we are right by a factor of 200% or more or answer for our lack of diligence in a far higher court.

Tomorrow we continue with the Bill of Right.

Paul

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Many of the constraints placed upon the government by the bill of rights stem from English Common Law which itself, can be traced back to the Magna Carta of 1215. In fact, the phrases “Due Process of Law” and “Grand Jury” both have their origin in the Magna Carta. Part of those legal protections were discussed yesterday in the Fourth Amendment that prohibits unlawful search and seizure.

To arrive at matters covered by the Fifth Amendment, we can hope that law enforcement has fulfilled their obligation under the Fourth Amendment and enough evidence has been lawfully gathered to proceed to trial. Minor offenses of the law are tried at the local level, or at the State level for more serious charges. While the provisions of double jeopardy, due process of law and self incrimination apply to all criminal proceedings, the requirement for a Grand Jury only applies to special circumstances involving capital crimes or other Federal offences. Curiously, the rules of evidence gathering are not a factor in a Grand Jury hearing which may hear all evidence before determining if is there is cause to recommend indictment. It is only during the trial phase where the admissibility of evidence is actually determined.

Only the most grievous crimes and capital offences are tried at the Federal level and the Fifth Amendment requires a special process because of the severity of the punishments associated with crimes of that nature. Except in cases of military tribunals during a time of war, the Fifth Amendment requires that a Grand Jury be convened to determine cause to bring charges in a capital offence. The common thread that binds all of the amendments together is once again, a deep distrust of a strong central government. Since it was natural in early law to use the legal system to dispose of one’s political enemies, the founding fathers felt it was critical that the charges leading to a capital trial were well founded and appropriate. The use of a Grand Jury would then place a jury of peers into the process of determining if sufficient cause existed to pursue charges, thus preventing the abuse of governmental power from corrupting the process.

Double Jeopardy is probably the most confusing of the stipulations in the Fifth Amendment. “…nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” You may in fact, be tried multiple times for the same crime but not under the same charge. For instance, a person that has been acquitted of first degree murder may not be tried a second time for first degree murder. In rare instances however, if sufficient evidence of guilt exists, he can be subsequently tried for second degree murder or any lesser associated charge. This provision was evidenced in the trials of the officers accused in the Rodney King case. The officers were charged with use of excessive force with one of the officers, Sergeant Koon, also charged with willfully permitting and failing to take action to stop the unlawful assault because he was the supervisory officer on the scene. The 1992 acquittal of the officers resulted in the Los Angeles riots of the same year. After the riots, the Department of Justice reinstated investigation and obtained an indictment of violations of federal civil rights against the four officers.

The federal trial focused more on the evidence as to the training of officers instead of just relying on the videotape of the incident. As a result of the 1993 Federal trial, the jury found Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon guilty, and they were eventually sentenced to 30 months in prison. The remaining two officers were acquitted of all charges.

An acquittal by jury is final and may not be appealed by the prosecution. Also, acquittal by a judge is generally final and prosecution is normally barred from seeking an appeal in that case as well. However, in cases where a conviction by jury has been overturned by a judge, the prosecution may appeal that reversal if they feel strongly that the judge is in error. Double Jeopardy also does not apply in cases where a mistrial has occurred.

The Fifth Amendment also bars the Federal government from taking private property for public use without adequate compensation.

The most famous provision of the Fifth Amendment is of course, that a defendant in a criminal trial cannot be compelled or forced to testify against himself. Out of all the protections in the bill of rights I am sure this will survive as long as Congress does regardless of the political winds. After all, Congress has probably used this provision of law far more often than we have. At last count there were:

29 members of Congress accused of spousal abuse
7 members of Congress arrested for fraud
19 members of Congress accused of writing bad checks
117 members of Congress either directly or indirectly bankrupted 2 businesses
3 members of Congress have served time for assault
71 members of Congress cannot obtain a credit card due to bad credit
14 members of Congress have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 members of Congress have been arrested for shoplifting
21 members of Congress are currently defendants in lawsuits and
84 members of Congress have been arrested for drunk driving.

No, I am not going to claim that I am “holier than thou”. We are human and we all have our bumps, bruises and warts. I probably wouldn’t taken the time to point out these human frailties if Congress had not taken to acting as though they are the elite of society and have begun to blatantly ignored the laws they have written for the rest of us to follow. When Bill Clinton lied to a Grand Jury, did it really matter what question he lied about? The point is that he lied under oath and if he were not the President he would have suffered greatly for that. Wait, let me rephrase that...If he were the President and was not a member of the controlling party of Congress, he would have suffered greatly for that. But no, once again they invoked their elitist mantra that the ruling class is exempt from such frivolous exercises as obeying a law that was obviously meant for the peasants alone.

Some argue that his marital fidelity was not a matter for the Grand Jury and I could agree with that to a point. However, the laws regarding perjury are not followed by an asterisk that point to an exclusion for questions about personal relationships, or for that matter, sitting Presidents. If there is cause to believe that the alleged relationship may have been at least partly funded with public money or was the result of the abuse of power, then it certainly becomes a question that needs to be asked. The fact is Mr. Clinton not only lied, but he lied under oath and to a Grand Jury; that is inexcusable. He could have followed the lawful path and invoked his rights under the Fifth Amendment to avoid self incrimination. I just don’t think he could have used his country charm and boyish giggle with that one and that would not have appealed to a man like him at all.

Please join me tomorrow for more on the Bill of rights.

Paul

Just for Fun!

The Third and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution

With the introduction of a special report last Wednesday and the observance of September 11th on Friday, we have fallen a little behind schedule in our discussions of the Bill of Rights. With your indulgence, I would like to get back on track by covering the next two amendments today.

Before we get started, I feel it is important to restate the reasons I am taking this trip through history and the Constitution. The Federal government has set its sights on passing massive legislation packages that grossly exceed the powers granted to it under the Constitution. If we were to really understand the scope of these violations, we would need to revisit not only the Constitution, but the intent of the people that crafted it and the reasons behind the key provisions that were written into this incredible document so very long ago.

The Constitution has been carefully preserved and readily accessible for all to read but the tendencies of the modern courts are to interpret the inferences behind the articles and amendments to the Constitution rather than read the words that are written upon it. Unfortunately, when interpretations are actually needed, they are not based on the documentary evidence available in the Federalist papers but rather, using the criteria that a modern lawyer would use to interpret any law. “What is permissible without actually breaking the law” and “How can the lines that define this law be blurred to make the impermissible actually possible.”

The Federalist papers are a collection of writings penned by the same men that had written the Constitution. Within those documents are the points that each made as they formed the agreements needed to obtain the legislative consent of the draft of the Constitution. These arguments were not trifle and not without good reason. To ignore the Federalist papers is to ignore the very heart and soul of the Constitution. To ignore the Federalist papers while attempting to interpret the meaning of the laws written into the Constitution is nothing less than dishonest.

The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791.

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

In 1765, Parliament enacted the Quartering Act. This Act stated that British troops stationed in the colonies would be housed in barracks and public houses. If the number of troops stationed in a particular area outnumbered the available military accommodation, the act permitted that the troops would be housed in a variety of structures including inns, stables, outbuildings, taverns, etc. and that the owners of those establishments would be required to provide food, bedding and other necessities without compensation. New York refused to cooperate with this act and the troops that arrived there had to remain quartered on board their ships. For their insolence, Parliament suspended the Province of New York's Governor and legislature in both 1767 and 1769. In 1771, the New York Assembly acquiesced and finally allocated local funds for the quartering of the British troops.

Since there was already a precedent established under Parliamentary rule whereby the King’s soldiers were quartered at the expense of the citizenry, a protection against future abuses of this sort were demanded as the new Constitution was in the process of ratification. While that was fresh in the minds of the people of the newly formed United States, it is hard to imagine that such abuses could occur in modern times. Even though there is only one notable court case on record that challenged the Third Amendment, the foresight of the founding fathers proved invaluable. Ironically, that challenge was brought by striking corrections officers against the State of New York; the very same state that had refused to cooperate with the Quartering Act of 1765.

Engblom v. Carey (677 F.2d 957), was a 1982 court case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The case was centered on a 1979 strike by New York State correction officers. The National Guard had been activated to perform some of duties of the striking officers. At certain prison facilities, including, Mid-Orange Correctional Facility, striking employees were evicted from employee housing which was then used to house some of the National Guard.

Two of the evicted officers at Mid-Orange Correctional Facility, Marianne E. Engblom and Charles E. Palmer, subsequently filed suit against the state of New York and its governor, Hugh L. Carey. The decision, rendered on May 3, 1982, established that the National Guardsmen legally qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment, that the amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, and that the protection of this amendment extends beyond home owners. The majority stated that the officer’s occupancy in the rooms was covered under the legal rules of "tenancy" and therefore, was protected under the Third Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This amendment is the cornerstone of our rights under the justice system. Since the premise is that all persons in the United States are considered innocent until proven guilty, there was a need to provide security against the unreasonable search or the confiscation of property without the due process of law. Barring circumstances where appropriate authorities actually witnessed the commission of a crime or have reason to believe that life and limb are in immediate peril, the involved authorities are required to bring evidence before a judge for the purpose of obtaining a warrant before a search can be lawfully executed without consent.

Failure of law enforcement to meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment has resulted in numerous examples whereby evidence that was unlawfully obtained had been deemed inadmissible in court. While it seems ludicrous to allow someone that is in the possession of damning evidence to go free if that evidence was improperly obtained, to allow the unlawful collection of that evidence without consequence poses a greater danger.

Without lawful restrictions on illegal search and seizure or measureable consequences for violating the process of law, law enforcement agencies would have quickly descended into systematic violations of these principals as it became clear that the ends justified the means. Freeing the obviously guilty if their Constitutional rights have been violated is the only reliable method to insure that the rights of the general public will not be ignored.

We were faced with this question not all that long ago. After the terrorist attacks that leveled the World Trade Center and severely damaged the Pentagon, the natural instinct was to allow the government to pursue anyone that was considered a threat. While I do believe that President Bush had the security and best interest of the nation at heart, I considered the Patriot Act to be as much of a danger as the terrorists themselves.

The Patriot Act gave unprecedented power to the Federal authorities that in fact, truncated our rights under the Fourth Amendment for the purpose of uncovering possible additional terrorist activities within the United States. The law already provides for the pursuit of those individuals but the authorities would have to appear before a judge and produce evidence of just cause to obtain a warrant before they could search and detain any suspects. I wanted those “gentlemen” rounded up and brought to justice as badly as any other American did, but I also remembered the words and warnings of Benjamin Franklin. “Those that would surrender liberty for security deserve neither.”

Please join me tomorrow as we dive into the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Paul

In Memory of September 11, 2001

We Will Never Forget

Do you remember those words? Do you remember the flags and the ceremonies? Do you remember a nation joined in tragedy?

Living in Arizona, it was still early when the radio announced that a commuter plane had struck one of the towers of the World Trade Center. Since I had originally come from New York, I immediately turned the television on just in time to see the second plane hit. It may have taken the news commentators by surprise, and they did need a few minutes to recover, but in that instant I knew there was only one possible answer. We were under attack by terrorists. Shortly after that, the Pentagon was hit and another plane had crashed in the fields of Pennsylvania as a group of heroic passengers sacrificed themselves in an effort to save the next intended target.

Over the next few days we watched the efforts to find anyone alive in that tangled smoking mess. We saw the tears of family members desperately searching for their loved ones. We saw the City of New York mourn for the firefighters and police that perished in their attempt to rescue those that were trapped in the still burning towers. Within hours, we knew there would be no more survivors beyond the few that were miraculously protected in the cocoon of a reinforced stairwell. A nation wept as the memorial services were held across the United States and we watched that too.

I saw the signs that said “We will never forget” and made a prediction that sadly came true before a year had even passed. I had hoped against hope that this time, the people really wouldn't forget and while some still remember, there are even more that have chosen to let other priorities overshadow the memory of that day. I knew they eventually would because patriotism is an inconvenience that modern man has little time for.

Hundreds of thousands of our finest soldiers bravely left the shores of this nation to bring retribution to the people that attacked the United States on September 11th. As usual, we brought the fight to them so that our people could be spared the hardships and horrors of war. Our families were safe and the stories of the lighting speed at which our military exacted the revenge of an angry America was unheard of in the annals of history. We cheered and waved our flags and then left for work. While our soldiers slept in ditches and fought in the foul stench of war we sipped our coffee and watched it all on television like some surreal reality show.

Day after day we went to work, walked our dogs, and played with our kids; slowly the country slipped back into the daily routines and that made us believe we were comfortable and safe again. I’m not sure when it began, but slowly the extra security at the airports became a cause to grumble. We didn’t like the inconvenience of new restrictions on mailing packages or for carry on luggage. The news agencies dropped their flags once more and began to run their usual liberal speak about the unfair profiling used during security checks and the mounting death toll incurred in the two wars we were then engaged in. Not one thought was given to the families that lost loved ones on September 11, 2001 as their stories in as much as said those losses were not worth the “atrocities” being committed by this nation for our revenge.

I suppose the most disconcerting thing is that I am talking about the main stream media and their following of "socially conscious" celebrities. I would expect this from the cadre of conspiracy clowns that believed that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush administration to give him the moral authority to start a war in the Middle East; ok, I actually expected it from Hollywood too. Then again, nothing that comes from tinsel town surprises me, but CNN? CBS? NBC? ABC?

I do want to set the record straight. I do not believe that we should have allowed President Bush to tear loopholes in the Constitution in the form of the Patriot Act. We already had the legal processes in place to put people under surveillance if there was sufficient proof to bring before a judge. In fact, if the CIA had only shared what they already knew with the FBI instead of engaging in a petty fight over jurisdiction, 9/11 may well have been prevented.

While I believe that Bush had the best interest of the country at heart, I think the Patriot act set a dangerous precedent that will allow future Presidents (or our current President) the ability to spy on the citizens of this country at will and that is probably why Janet Napolitano has come up with a very interesting profile of what domestic terrorists look like. Hmmm….I guess it’s ok to profile at least some Americans now.

I do not think the United States has any business engaging in “Nation Building”. If we are threatened with attack then we should by all means neutralize that threat and then leave. If the United States had the reputation of dealing swift and brutal reprisals that were not accompanied by billions of dollars to rebuild what we just spent billions of dollars to destroy, who would dare test us? How often would they try? But no, we place our military in danger by taking away their most effective weapons and turn them into policemen; a job they were never trained to perform while palates of cash are flown in to restore foreign infrastructure while ours at home is sadly crumbling.

Our nation was attacked in 2001 by foreign terrorists residing in the United States. Why then, are we still discussing illegal immigration in 2009? While the Patriot Act allowed the Federal government unprecedented freedom to gather intelligence on the citizens of this country, our borders remained curiously open and the rudimentary steps to identify potential terrorists were never taken.

Step one? Anyone here on a Visa should have been required to report to the State Department immediately for verification of their identity and whereabouts. Those that failed to report should have automatically been considered suspect and sought out.

Step two? Our borders and other points of international entry should have been closely guarded. Here in Arizona, we are constantly finding the remnants of tunnels excavated by mere drug traffickers, the complexity of which defy logic. How can this happen in a post-9/11 America? Where is the vigilance? Where are the Federal authorities that are pledged to defend this nation?

Step three? When you are dealing with foreign extremists that are pledged to kill as many Americans as humanly possible, there is no such thing as profiling. The idea that an eighty-year old woman had to be frightened out of her wits as she was hand searched before boarding an airplane is ludicrous. To my knowledge, there were no eighty year old women that participated in the hijackings of September 11th. Yet, I saw this lunacy myself as I was passing through security at Sky Harbor Airport in November of 2001. The only reason airport security had even questioned this woman was to prevent ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and the like, from airing more stories that airport authorities were racially profiling passengers if and when they searched someone of middle-eastern heritage.

Today is September 11, 2009, the eighth anniversary of the attacks and across the nation, people will take their flags out of mothballs and the news networks will surrender three minutes of air time to cover the memorial services so we can all say “I remember”. Then the sun will set and the sun will rise and people will wake up, sip their coffee and walk their dogs again while our soldiers are still sleeping in ditches in a hostile land. The real difference is that today we have a President that would dare to politicize this solemn day by once again, infusing his agenda into the memorial ceremonies by calling for a "National Day of Service and Remembrance." Only a narcissist would place their own message of service before the remembrance of the more than three-thousand Americans that died this day or the countless soldiers that have died since to avenge them.

It is a damned shame but the sad fact is that most Americans do forgot for 364 days a year. Oh New Yorker's remember. Everytime a plane flies too low or a truck backfires they remember all too well. Maybe if we fought the war here on our own soil some other people would remember too. Many then we would begin to appreciate the freedom we enjoy now if our comfortable little lives were threatened now and then. If we weren't so foolishly sure that the sun will rise for us tomorrow like it always does.

You know, that is what made the people of the World War Two generation so extraordinary. Victory in that war was never certain and all Americans had a real fear that we might actually lose that war. As a result, the people here did their best to support our soldiers by personal sacrifices and in their daily actions so that liberty could eventually prevail. No one dared to breathe a sigh of relieve until the very day of surrender, no one questioned our commitment to win, and certainly, not one person of that generation ever, ever forgot the sacrifices that were made for them.

In spite of all our faults and mistakes, may God Bless America

Paul

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The men that drafted the Constitution of The United States added the Amendments in the order of their moral priority. If one looks at the Constitution and the Amendments with an eye on practicality, the Second Amendment then becomes at least, par with the First Amendment in importance. The Second Amendment is the guardian and guarantor of the Bill of Rights, preventing the Federal Government from writing any law that would deny the citizens of this nation the arms they would need to defend the nation, their State and to defend the rights that were secured under the new government.

Without the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution would have little meaning and no defense against a corrupt government. Let us not forget that the men who drafted the Constitution had also written into the Declaration of Independence “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” It is clear that they possessed a deep and abiding distrust of governments in general and while they labored to create a nation founded in freedom, they recognized that this Republic was a supreme experiment and the outcome was yet to be proven.

Many opponents of the private ownership of firearms use the first few words of this amendment to say that this was strictly to provide for the arming of a State Militia; that it was never intended as a right for the common citizen to possess firearms. Well, once again we will delve into the Federalist Papers. That is where you will always find the clear intent of the men that wrote the Constitution and the Amendments. An excerpt taken from a document written by Alexander Hamilton on January 10, 1788 says:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”

It was the intent of this Amendment to insure that the citizens are armed to defend this fledgling nation and it is clear by this passage alone, that the entire populace was expected to be armed. The “Militia only” interpretation the detractors of the Second Amendment say is implied in the Constitution clearly does not exist. The “regulation” that is implied in the Constitution was directed at insuring the Citizens were properly armed and is not meant to say that those that may bear arms can only exist as part of a National Guard or regular Army and in fact, this passage indicates that was not to be expected of the people.

Bear in mind that Congress had already created an army that had just secured our independence from Great Britain and there were provisions written into the draft of the Constitution that provided Congress with the means and the authority to raise an army, a navy and to secure the funds to provide for them both. If a militia was the sole intent of the Second Amendment, it would be the one and only redundant provision that appeared in the whole of the Constitution.

I find it mildly interesting that those that claim the intuitive insight to interpret the Constitution on our behalf tend to ignore the very store of documents that are the road map through the minds of the men that wrote it. To ignore the Federalist papers is a gross injustice to the American people and an insult to the honor of the founding fathers of this nation.

So why do I feel that the right to bear arms is so important? I could point to the article I posted here yesterday as one good reason. Pravda has all but written off the United States and quite honestly, if we do not put a stop to the insanity of 3.6 trillion dollar budgets, trillion dollar deficits and the wholesale looting of the treasury by “community organizers”, I agree with them. Rather than spell out a scenario of doom and gloom I will name my second reason, or rather Thomas Jefferson will…

“…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.”

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is quoted as saying "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all." Let’s face it; only someone that intends to deny or destroy our rights and freedoms would be fearful of the people that would stand to defend them. It further tells me that if he could find a way around the Second Amendment, they would have already started collecting guns.

Henry Waxman is one of the authors of the Waxman-Markey or Climate Bill. This bill is supposed to protect the environment by reducing the carbon output of the United States. To do so, this bill will severely cripple the manufacturing industries in this nation and place draconian restrictions on personal power consumption by raising the price of energy to a point that will be unsustainable for the average American household.

The truly criminal part of that legislation is that it will have no effect on the environment whatsoever. China and India are the largest producers of carbon emissions and refuse to hamper their economic growth by enacting similar measures. The bill will certainly reduce carbon emissions in our country but not because we are cleaner. The emissions will be reduced as manufacturing industries relocate to other nations that do not possess costly restrictions on manufacturing and are truly happy for the opportunity to put their citizens to work doing the jobs we once had. Is this why Henry Waxman is nervous?

Gun opponents would cite crime statistics involving the use of firearms. The statistics they ignore is that the vast majority of those crimes are committed with unlawfully obtained firearms and in many cases, by people that are already prohibited from owning firearms because of a felony criminal record. You see, criminals by definition, do not obey the law so weapon legislation does not stop them. They also ignore the statistics that say that gun violence is predominately highest in the cities where they already possess stringent gun ownership laws. That is because the criminals aren’t quite so brave when there is an even chance that you might have a weapon too.

The text written by Alexander Hamilton that was posted above is a clear indication that the nation’s founders looked at the citizens very differently than Congress does now. We were the nation then, equal in status and rights. Now we are treated as the subjects of this massive government, nearly as much as we were under King George and that alone is sufficient to reinforce the need for the Second Amendment.

To make things worse, the Federal government continues to expand its powers beyond those granted to it under the Enumerated Powers Act, which is highly dangerous in a government that is full of people that think they are the new aristocracy. Remember, criminals by definition, do not obey the law and that includes the elected ones.


Please join me tomorrow for the Third Amendment

Paul

****Special Report****

For those that thought I was foolish in my assertions of what this President represents or what his circle of advisors says about this administration, I offer the following in evidence.

Pravda, which means “Truth” in Russian, was founded in 1908. From 1912 through 1991, was the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. It was officially disbanded in 1991 by Boris Yeltsin. However, a group of former Pravda employees created an on-line version of this media organ in 1999.

The following is an article that appeared in the September 8, 2009 edition of Pravda on-line. I found this extremely illuminating, not to mention, sadly vindicating.

In keeping with their permission standard for reproduction of this article on my blog I am including the hyperlink to the original article as it appears in Pravda Online

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-1/

I am also including a link to a Snopes article verifying that this piece did appear in Pravda on-line and that it was not altered or exaggerated in any way. I am doing that because things that detract from the President’s image have been mysteriously disappearing from the internet in recent days. I wanted to make sure at least some record of the story made it to your screens when you read this.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pravda.asp

The Article is as follows.

American capitalism gone with a whimper

Source: Pravda.Ru
URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin


Please consider these words very carefully and refer to them when you write to your legislators. Keep them in mind during the mid-term elections. The communists of the world are salivating as the United States shows every sign that she is about to commit suicide and it is up to all of us to see that they are once again, disappointed.


Tomorrow we will continue with our planned discussion of the Second Amendment.

Paul