The new abortion, Part 3 ~ By Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris discusses the battle that is being lined up right now that will decide whether we are able to keep our guns. At this time, the new Supreme Court nominee is Elena Kagan, and as you will read below, she is the big unknown as to her feelings about the 2nd Amendment. It could possibly and ultimately come down to her, and not George Soros or the anti-gun lobbies or even the U.N..

Thomas Jefferson wrote near the end of his life in 1823: "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us 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."

The clear interpretation of the Second Amendment provided the basis for Jefferson to offer this encouragement to his nephew Peter Carr, "Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

That same clear interpretation also forever establishes "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, [and it] shall not be infringed." As George Washington stated, "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

The 27 words of the Second Amendment: "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." (emphasis mine)

By Chuck Norris

Posted: May 10, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

(Editor's note: This is Part Three of a three-part series on the threat to the Second Amendment and Americans' firearm freedoms.)

I believe the political stars are aligning right now for the opening of a new front in the battle against our gun rights: via the election and work of an anti-gun president, the disarmament passions of the Washington elite and the United Nations, the appointments of gun prohibitionists from the White House to the Supreme Court and the funding of an anti-Second Amendment movement by billionaire progressives like George Soros.

In Part One, I discussed President Obama's anti-Second Amendment record and his administration's goals to use dormant treaties and global agencies to loosen the boundaries and binds of the Second Amendment. In Part Two, last week, I further discussed the United Nation's participation in that treaty development and "consensus" process.

If it weren't bad enough to have a plethora of government officials in Washington that abandon and abolish the principles of the Second Amendment, it is far worse to have them in the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, dutifully designated with the honor to interpret and apply our Constitution to cases across the land, and with lifetime tenure to boot.

To add insult to injury to the degradation of the Second Amendment, months back Obama appointed new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor with her narrow view of the Second Amendment. Then a few weeks ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said he will retire in June, leaving President Obama with an open field of liberal appointees.

Gun-rights advocate and scholar David Kopel offers a summary overview of how Obama's potential replacements for retiring Justice Stevens measure up to the Second Amendment:

Strongly ideological, highly committed gun prohibitionist: Harold Koh.

Extensive record of anti-Second Amendment leadership: Secretary of State Clinton, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Gov. Deval Patrick.

Limited but clearly negative record on right to arms: Judge Diane Wood, Judge Merrick Garland.

Mixed record, but with very little positive: Amy Klobuchar.

Mixed record: Cass Sunstein, Janet Napolitano [negatives include the ridiculous Department of Homeland Security report conflating political dissent with terrorism; as governor she signed some pro-right to arms legislation, and vetoed other bills], Jennifer Granholm [like Napolitano, a mixed record as governor, including signing some important reforms].

Unknown: Elena Kagan (MY NOTE: It was just announced Sunday, May 9, 2010, that Elena Kagan - hmmm... rhymes with pagan - will be the nominee for the Supreme Court.)

It's that "unknown" Elena Kagan who has gun owners particularly concerned at the moment, not only because she's Obama's favored choice but because evidence for her beliefs on gun control is extremely scarce. Then again, does anyone suppose Obama's desire to appoint her infers her conservative stance on the Second Amendment?

The gist is that none of Obama's proposed nominees has any firm respect for the Second Amendment, and this "missing link" may become pivotally important if the United Nations passes a gun ban treaty. Any such treaty will conflict directly with our Second Amendment constitutional freedoms, and it's entirely possible that the Supreme Court will have to resolve the issue.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

The tyranny of transnationalism ~ By Ellis Washington

By Ellis Washington Posted: July 11, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

Once we sign our rights over to international law, the Constitution is officially dead. – Glenn Beck

I am rare among law academics in that I consider international law to be essentially a legal fiction. For the sake of argument assume that my thesis is correct. This enigma then begs the question: How can international law, which by definition is made up of the laws of many sovereign nations, be applicable to all nations on an equal basis? Answer: It can't. Modern international law had its origins concurrent with the inauguration of the United Nations at the San Francisco Conference (April, 1945) and its first international trial, the Nuremberg Trials (1945-48). Since the end of World War II international law has evolved to create and integrate other aspects of law, namely transnational law which in essence is a form of supranational law, which contends that laws of nation states are held inapplicable when conflicting with a supranational legal system. On March 29th, the Obama Administration nominated Harold Koh (on leave as the Dean of Yale Law School), as the senior legal advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. On June 25, 2009, Koh was confirmed by the Senate in a 62-35 vote. Koh is one of the foremost experts in the field of transnational law and has written extensively on this subject both in books and in law journals. While his nomination has been generally supported in the Senate and by most law academics, Koh's nomination did have some criticism from some conservative commentators for his views on international law and its use in American legal analysis and jurisprudence. Surprisingly, other conservatives such as former Bush 41 Solicitor General, Ted Olsen, former Whitewater Special Counsel, Kenneth Starr and even generally conservative publications such as Forbes Magazine, have all supported Koh's nomination. In a recent article, a student-editor at Pepperdine said of Obama's nominee: "Koh has defined his academic career by arguing for the mandatory authority of international law in domestic realm of American jurisprudence." Koh's arguments for "transnational jurisprudence" as being essential to maintaining a well ordered international legal system is compelling. Koh's contention that "concepts like liberty, equality and privacy are not exclusively American constitutional ideas but, rather, part and parcel of the global human rights movement," is in line with the conventional thinking of the legal community. Unfortunately, Koh's legal theories are from a decidedly secular humanist and positive law worldview which glorifies the power of the State, versus a natural law worldview that integrates law and morality by placing moral law above the State not below it. Conservatives on the Supreme Court, particularly Thomas and Scalia, have criticized transnational jurisprudence as not being amenable with legitimate judicial precedent as Koh maintains, but argue that citing foreign decisions as legal precedents threatens American sovereignty. Other commentators like Forbes and the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, have contended that the "use of such nonbinding sources to bolster legal arguments is a central and uncontroversial tenet of the American judicial process." While Koh's transnational jurisprudence is interesting, what does American constitutional history have to say about it? According to an exhaustive study by Lutz and Hyneman that took them over 10 years to bring together, they amassed over 15,000 items, including 2,200 books, newspaper articles, pamphlets and monographs of political materials written between 1760-1805. The three most quoted legal philosophers by the Constitution's framers were:

Baron Charles Montesquieu, "The Spirit of the Laws" (1748); Sir William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765-69); John Locke, "Two Treatises of Government" (1689)

All three men were Natural Law philosophers to the core and their ideas thoroughly influenced America's Founding Fathers. The only other source quoted more than these three political philosophers was the Bible which, according to the Lutz/Hyneman study, accounted for 96 percent of the ideas that formed America's republic. [CONTINUE READING]

What a concept: Lawmakers supporting sovereignty ~ By Oliver North

By Oliver North Posted: June 26, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 WASHINGTON – My old American Heritage Dictionary defines "sovereignty" as "complete independence and self-government." Our Declaration of Independence affirms, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." In January 2000, Jesse Helms, the legendary U.S. senator from North Carolina, succinctly summed up the meaning of these words for the United Nations Security Council by explaining that "nations derive their sovereignty – their legitimacy – from the consent of the governed." The ayatollahs brutally crushing dissent in Iran consider this linkage – sovereignty, legitimacy and the consent of the governed – to be as repugnant as a ham sandwich. Regrettably, these concepts do not appear to be grasped at the Obama White House, either. Thankfully, there are some in Washington who do understand. Nearly a year ago, Freedom Alliance, the Center for Security Policy and The Heritage Foundation began urging members of Congress to convene a body to focus on issues of American sovereignty. On Wednesday, Reps. Doug Lamborn, Thad McCotter and Scott Garrett announced the formation of the Congressional Sovereignty Caucus – an entity dedicated to preserving U.S. sovereignty. More than 30 other members of the House of Representatives already have enrolled. U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint became the first member of the "world's greatest deliberative body" to join. They have their work cut out for them. Yesterday, less than 24 hours after members of the Congressional Sovereignty Caucus met with supporters at the Capitol Visitor Center, the U.S. Senate confirmed the appointment of Harold Koh, formerly the dean of Yale Law School, as the legal adviser for the State Department. The 62-35 vote means that Koh is now in a position to negotiate treaties, affect international law and influence U.S. foreign policy. That's not good news. Koh is a self-described "transnationalist," who "believes in and promotes the blending of international and domestic law." According to Koh, "U.S. courts can and should use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system." In short, he is a proponent of ensuring that citizens of the United States are in "obedience with international law." Unfortunately, the legal adviser's appointment is just the tip of the iceberg in the Obama administration. Mr. Obama's nominee to become associate justice of the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, has spoken favorably about foreign law influencing U.S. legal decisions. In April, she argued, "To the extent that we have freedom of ideas, international law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how to think about the unsettled issues in our legal system." This kind of "thinking" is now endemic among Washington's political elite. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has asserted that the U.S. must "modernize and revitalize" international organizations and create new global governing institutions. Sen. John Kerry, now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged that U.S. defense policy should pass a "global test" before being implemented. And while campaigning for president, our apologizer in chief declared in Berlin that he is a "citizen of the world."[CONTINUE READING]

Pay More Attention to Harold Koh ~ By Oliver North

By Oliver North It is said that there are two kinds of lawyers -- those who know the law, and those who know the judge. And then there is Harold Koh, the man who is likely to be the next Legal Adviser to the State Department. Koh most recently served as Dean of the Yale Law School and before that as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Labor and Human Rights in the Clinton administration. He is a prolific author and a legal activist of the Left. Earlier this week, his nomination to be Foggy Bottom’s barrister was voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 12-5. His pending appointment has received scant attention from the media or the senators who will decide his fate. It deserves a closer look. The State Department Legal Adviser is unique. The person holding the position helps formulate and implement U.S. foreign policy; advises the Justice Department on cases with international implications; influences U.S. positions on issues considered by international bodies; represents the U.S. at treaty negotiations and international conferences; has input into the drafting of Security Council resolutions and the interpretation of treaties. Koh’s record deserves more scrutiny because he is not just an attorney who knows the law -- he is an activist lawyer who knows what he wants the law to be. From all he has said and written, it is apparent that Koh wants U.S. jurisprudence to be shaped by international law, European courts, foreign governments, and international organizations like the United Nations. Koh puts himself in the “transnationalist” camp of legal practioners, which he describes as those who “believe in and promote the blending of international and domestic law.” He has written that “transnationalists believe that U.S. courts can and should use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system.” [Continue reading]

digg story ~ Submitted by Pepper1024