Escalating loss of our Constitution

Written by Emmette Boone

Tuesday, 03 March 2009 01:47

I fear we are witnessing an escalating loss of our Constitution. The example cited below is but one instance of efforts to weaken and destroy the basis of the way of life achieved at great sacrifice and given to us to protect and preserve for future generations.

The quotable quote concluding this article demonstrates a willingness to create chaos, then exploit and cultivate the fears and anxieties it creates to institute totalitarian style mandates that a free and secure society would not otherwise accept.

I've digressed too long, to the point:

Reading HR 45, the "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act" introduced by Representative Rush (D-IL) leads one to understand some of the reasons Congress's poll numbers are so low as to be bordering on single digits. In this bill Rep. Rush cites the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8), and the tragic death of a young man, Blair Holt, at the hands of a violent criminal to justify a draconian Second Amendment infringement, the limits of which he leaves to the whim of the US Attorney General.

In HR 45, Section 102, (7) Rep. Rush outlines the "Application Requirements" which include, within an extensive list of requirements, the para. (E) words, "any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate."

HR 45 is not legislation written by a freedom-loving representative of a free people. It shows little regard for rights of The People guaranteed in the US Constitution. Even rights specifically protected in the words, "the right of the people to . . . shall not be infringed", Rep. Rush (D-IL) finds need to subject to arbitrary limitations, "as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate."

As reported by an organization renowned for defending the US Constitution, "H.R. 45 is essentially a reintroduction of HR 2666, which Rep. Rush introduced in 2007."

Too often we find failed legislation reintroduced year after year in an attempt to wear its opposition down or catch the majority of the legislators unaware as it is tied to less nefarious legislation. That or finding legislators who, relying on the advice or demand from their political party leaders, simply don't read the bills they vote on and pass sight unseen. A recent "sight-unseen" example was demonstrated by the passage of a $787 Billion Big Government Stimulus bill whose thousand plus pages of legislative excess passed both houses of congress within several days of its actual content being available for review and debate. The House passed it in less than eighteen hours after it became available for review, the senate a day or so later.

The veil of immunity protecting legislators from civil liability related to the cost incurred by organizations of concerned citizens protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States against such repeated nefarious and vial efforts to subvert the intent and integrity of the US Constitution through legislative acts such as proposed by Rep. Rush in HR 45 should be penetrated. Rep. Rush, any co-sponsors to HR 45 and any legislators voting in favor of such an egregious bill should be held accountable for the costs incurred by groups opposing their irresponsible legislative efforts. Legislators should be held personally and collectively liable for the costs incurred by any organization coming to the defense of the Constitution and the constraints it imposes on the federal government and its representatives.

Congress should not be allowed to hold its members immune from civil or criminal prosecution for harm or expenses caused public interests as a result of its reckless, fervent or unconstitutional assaults against the sovereignty and security of this nation and the Constitution. And the defenders of freedom should not be required to bear the entire burden of defending the Constitution from its domestic enemies, enemies using the public treasure in their assault. The regulation of interstate commerce does not trump the Second Amendment, and the Attorney General's arbitrary whim is not the arbitrator of an infrangible right of The People.

Usurping the Constitution is not the prerogative of the US Congress or the courts. Both are subject to the Constitution, not the master of it . . . or The People.