WE the PEOPLE;

The Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

These three words establish the intended use and definition of the word People as a very specific subset of humanity, ie, “of the United States”, ie, citizens rather than the painfully stretched definition the Left contends to include all those who find themselves here by permissive guests or by surreptitious entry.

Those words also begin laying out the unified vision for a brand-new Nation, raised up from the ashes of an armed Revolt of a People from their rightful if not oppressive government. Three words, the meaning of which, for most of our history were taken for granted; recently questioned for its founding intent as either too narrowly focused or intended to be globally applied.

The Founders relied on contemporaries like Burke, Locke, Hobbes, Coke, Montesquieu and Rousseau as well as Philosophers in Antiquity like Plato and Socrates to build on the concept of the social contract emanating from the agreement between free men for there can be no other legitimate expression of a free, deliberative, protective government unless it is first established by the very free men whom that government is established to protect.

When they first convened in May of 1787, to establish the framework for governance, its responsibilities and limitations, they determined to start with whole cloth versus simply cutting and pasting from established works like the Articles of Confederation like some had proposed. Their approach was simple, time honored and built using accepted rhetorical tools; Logic, Progression, Redundancy where needed, Concise Language. They approached the document as if building upon precepts established in documents and from language they had already used and accepted like in the Articles and the Declaration of Independence.

The Preamble identifies the purpose, establishes the source of authority, the principle duties of the new government and one narrow definition: the People. Considering they had just engaged in a Revolt to secure for themselves the Right to chart their own destiny and to establish themselves as a new Nation, it would be entirely illogical, arrogant and presumptuous to use a universal definition of People even while the philosophy underpinning their claim, is a universal one. The US Constitution then, is for the governance and the limitations of that government delegated by an uniquely American People/Citizenry, for the Establishment, Tranquility, Defense and Security of the newly formed United States of America.

Each of the Articles and Amendments to the Constitution use progression and redundancy as tools to emphasize their intent and to revisit their definitions when reusing certain words and phrases which show up earlier in the document. The word “People” has been bandied about to muddy clarity and win converts to the idea that the word is pluralistic in its use and applies to the entirety of the global population to justify all of whom might breach our borders and squat here, without deliberative permission.

From that first sentence of the Preamble, the definition of the word People, is clearly narrow in scope and refers only to those establishing the Nation and their Posterity. Section I of the 14th Amendment then expands that definition to include those Immigrants who are also Naturalized as citizens by Legal Process. Thus the contextual meaning of the word “People” equals Citizenry. Nowhere does the context change in Section I, either linguistically, stated expansion of the definition or omission.

The past three generations of youth having been fed a steady diet of the Gene Roddenberry science fiction construct of an altruistic, utopian, United Federation of Planets reinforced with Academia’s teaching that the essence of Socialism and even Communism are the manifestations of that fantasy; suggesting not only of it being possible, but anyone being of low moral character for not being willing to sacrifice your essential Liberty (Rights and Private Ownership of Property) to help bring the Star Trek fantasy/global Utopia to fruition. This, despite the entire breadth and depth of history, revealing precisely the opposite. It is astonishing that any Nation has survived the 200-year mark much less our approaching 250 given man’s capacity to self-destruct and even to demand his own enslavement. Even the Bible’s core message is the almost comical inability of mankind to keep 10, basic rules much less the 700 that the Israelites heaped onto themselves.

In fact, the entire Old Testament can be summed up in two words: continual failure. There is no historical evidence of people evolving or of a maintained Altruistic spirit, no Utopia and surely no evidence of men – or women who didn’t succumb to the base desires of the heart; Lust, Jealousy, Depravity, Self-aggrandizement, Power Mongering, Envy, Murder, etc. Even IF Communism or its little sister, Socialism could be justified, where are the men and women, pure of heart that would be assigned to guide it and guard against abuse? Pelosi, Schumer, Waltz, Harris, Schiff, Obama, Biden, Bill or Hillary (to name a few) none of whom ever held a job in the private sector or contributed one once of personal effort to the GDP having leeched off the Taxpayer teat their entire lives and who are all, mysteriously multi-millionaires? They are not unique in their self-concern, they are in fact reminders of the unquenchable, uncontrollable, universal affliction of all men and women spanning the entire history of mankind; past, present and future.

Its unfortunate that the Academics don’t spend at least as much time teaching English Grammar much less history. If they did, NYC might not be poised to vote for their first Constitutionally antithetical Muslim/Shiite/Twelver/Communist and there might be more support for ICE and outrage toward the Democrats for causing the problem ICE Agents are now saddled with correcting. But then those teachers and professors were once students having been fed a steady diet of freedom ending indoc diatribe from their first mentors/professors who were also fed in kind.

This problem we have been witnessing is neither new nor recent. It has been simmering for our entire existence as a Nation as evidenced by the disagreements amongst the Founders and the final battle of the Revolution fought a scant 84 years later in the Civil War. While the North used Slavery as the battle cry to energize an entire generation to fight, the South focused on the Sanctity of State Sovereignty.

That war laid to rest the argument as to whether the State or a Federal, centralized government would be the supreme authority even while maintaining those pesky definitions including that of the use of the word People.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

The Immutable Right

The Left has challenged the very definition of a Right since before the signing of the Constitution in 1789. The origin of the concept of the Individual’s Right is as old as humanity. The philosophy underpinning the declarations of the preeminence and immutability of Rights has certainly evolved over time but only in the way the subject is presented - not the substance.

The rhetoric has been honed during the build up to every major Revolution in modern history and the establishment of lists of Rights have been drafted reflecting the recent experiences of the Authors, Friction between Government and the Citizenry, Proliferation of Biblical Truth and Strife.

Our unique US experience with Rights, predates our Revolution as several of the Founders studied the Concept, History and the academic works of people like John Locke, Edmund Burke (both contemporaries), Greek Philosophy etc. They drew up and embedded a type of headed outline in the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) from which the Bill of Rights is naturally derived.

The tension between the Individual and the State has existed for all of human history. It stems from Man's sinful nature and the divergence in natural inclinations that we live with every day. In school it manifests in a migration toward the Arts and a desire to control versus building the Individual and his naturally occurring Gifts and Talents.

This Tension first manifests in innocuous settings but quickly seeks established venues where the desire can be nurtured and a herd affected. Our Founders had learned of this divergence, saw it in one historical example after another, lived with it and were determined to extract themselves from it; establish a new model with a new Guard and a new Hierarchy placing the Individual at the Apex.

The Constitution established three co-equal branches of Government with the expressed intent of self-scrutiny and ultimately, protection of the individual, his unhindered access to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the limits of government in this regard.

The Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the extraneous, prolific writings of the Founders explain in detail their viewpoint, intent and desire to identify a list of Basic, naturally occurring Rights which allow the Individual to establish his life, maintain his liberty/freedom and to pursue ventures in life that are both fulfilling and allow him to sustain and enrich his life.

Rights therefore, are philosophically acknowledged to be as much a component of the Individual as his Eyes, Ears, Hands, Feet, Tongue, Heart, Brain and the very God-Breathed Life within us as opposed to Privileges which are granted by men, require prerequisites and are finite in duration.

Leftists have for years sought to diminish the immutability characteristic of a Right to justify the insinuation of government control of Rights starting with the Second Amendment. It is ironic that while they zealously pursue government control over the engagement of the Second Amendment, they simultaneously demand the establishment of a new Right - from new cloth, i.e., unregulated use of abortion.

It is ironic because their precedent setting attempts to negate a well-established acknowledgement of the Keeping and Bearing of Arms as a Natural, God-Given, Appendage to each individual and with it the very concept of the existence of the Uninfringeable Right makes their demands of no affect.

As to the Founder's Intent, Meaning and understanding of the Rights concept and how the second fits the other nine, you only must revisit the clause..."that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Life requires certain Basics; food, clothing, shelter, freedom of thought and expression; to choose supplication to, worship of and communing with God; selecting like-minded fellow citizens who swear to defend the Constitution and the Nation, the freedom to improve your lot in life and the ability to defend against all threats to those basics.

In order to decipher the clear intent of the Second Amendment, it requires just a very little history, etymology of a few words, the future expectations of the Founders and their dedication to arming the Citizenry with every tool required to establish, maintain and defend the society at large.

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.”

Well Regulated - the phrase itself has never been argued. However, what is being regulated has. Punctuation is important and clearly it is the organization/Militia being described as "well regulated", i.e., trained, disciplined...even answerable.

Militia - in the absence of any other Martial terms in language, Militia could be used to describe any number of assembled individuals, gathered for defensive action. HOWEVER, given the context, the document and the historical period during which this is rendered, the Writers, Signers and their recent history, clearly, Militia refers to an extra-governmental assembly. Additionally, it defies logic to think the Founders would take the time to essentially plead with the world that they had the Right to establish an Army.

It also would be inconsistent for them to include collectivist language in a list of Individual Rights.

History, etymology and language clearly indicate that the American Militia is manned, armed, trained, fielded, led by civilians without government sanction and in spite of it.

Keeping - Individual Ownership

Bearing - Keeping on your person, i.e., carrying

Shall not be infringed - Cannot be cordoned, denied, categorized, interfered with, legislated.

Arms - one of a few words in use today as it was in antiquity. In fact, so much so that the Leftist argument against private ownership of the Leftist conjured classification of Assault Weapon is made anathema.

Arms, militarily, historically, traditionally, culturally, and in literature define a category of weaponry carried and employed by a single Warrior - without qualification. Interestingly, civilian weapons used for hunting, sport, personal protection or even Law Enforcement are not categorized as Arms.

Arms can include but are not limited to, daggers, swords, bow and arrow, match lock, flint lock, cap lock, breech loaded, bolt action, trapdoor, semi-auto, select-fire, internally fed or magazine fed rifles, handguns etc. that are or have been issued to Soldiers, Militiamen, Hoplites etc. Ironically, an argument could be made that only "Weapons of War" are covered by the Second Amendment.

What is missing from the text in the Second Amendment is the unregulated use of/discharging of those Arms. Legislation detailing when and where you can shoot is reasonable being as fellow citizens, in some instances could be endangered, i.e., on city streets, inside buildings not having a range, near schools, etc.

In summary, the Founder's personal studies coupled with their recent, shared history fueled their debate and the resultant Constitution with its delineated, protected and preeminent Bill of Rights all of which was designed to afford the Individual guidance for and protection from Government.

SF

jb