Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Roland S. Martin"
channel.
-
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry's propaganda arm NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's Heller decision is an outlier. In Heller he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia, as substantiated by the Militia Act of May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution and an arm OF gov't, regulated and governed under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry, via its propaganda front NRA, claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment, which became the Second Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [In brackets I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" debated regarding the amendment was the last clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
That clause is clarified by this provision in the New York constitution adopted on April 20, 1777:
"XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times here-after, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth.[FN 13] And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.
"FN 13. This exemption-fee was fixed at £10 per annum by the act of April 3, 1778, organizing the militia of the State."
And that clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
was obviously voted down before the proposed amendment was submitted to the states for consideration. Thus the Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring not only the existing state constitutions and laws which eventuated in the US Constitution, and the Congress's own legislative history -- the Debates of the writing of the Amendment are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Second Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions".
And on May 2, 1792, the Congress enacted this Militia Act:
"An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
And the Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's Militia, reinforced by a DRAFT, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution -- more than two years AFTER the Amendment was ratified -- the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn outlier Heller and its progeny.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry's propaganda arm NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's Heller decision is an outlier. In Heller he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia, as substantiated by the Militia Act of May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution and an arm OF gov't, regulated and governed under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry, via its propaganda front NRA, claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment, which became the Second Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [In brackets I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" debated regarding the amendment was the last clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
That clause is clarified by this provision in the New York constitution adopted on April 20, 1777:
"XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times here-after, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth.[FN 13] And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.
"FN 13. This exemption-fee was fixed at £10 per annum by the act of April 3, 1778, organizing the militia of the State."
And that clause --
": but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." --
was obviously voted down before the proposed amendment was submitted to the states for consideration. Thus the Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring not only the existing state constitutions and laws which eventuated in the US Constitution, and the Congress's own legislative history -- the Debates of the writing of the Amendment are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Second Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions".
And on May 2, 1792, the Congress enacted this Militia Act:
"An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
And the Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's Militia, reinforced by a DRAFT, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution -- more than two years AFTER the Amendment was ratified -- the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn outlier Heller and its progeny.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leave "God," which can't be proven to exist, out of it, because that's the fantasy behind which the criminal enterprise is hiding, and the very same fantasy they want to shove down our throats.
___
From must-see film "A Man for All Seasons," with Paul Scofield:
In the following, Roper was Thomas More's hot-headed and impulsive son-in-law--
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws, from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
__
Ttump's gang is engage in an all-out war against the rule of law. To abandon rule of law is to join the criminal enterprise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is systemic r-c-sm -- note author and date. And that it is as true today as it was then ---
___
Disgraceful Persecution of a Boy.
By Mark Twain.
In San Francisco, the other day, "a well-dressed boy, on his way to Sunday school, was arrested and thrown into the city prison for stoning Chinamen."
What a commentary is this upon human justice! What sad prominence it gives to our human disposition to tyrannize over the weak!
San Francisco has little right to take credit to herself for her treatment of this poor boy.
What had the child's education been?
How should he suppose it was wrong to stone a Chinaman?
Before we side against him, along with outraged San Francisco, let us give him a chance -- let us hear the testimony for the defence.
He was a "well-dressed" boy, and a Sunday-school scholar, and, therefore, the chances are that his parents were intelligent, well-to-do people, with just enough natural villany in their compositions to make them yearn after the daily papers, and enjoy them; and so this boy had opportunities to learn all through the week how to do right, as well as on Sunday.
It was in this way that he found out that the great commonwealth of California imposes an unlawful mining tax upon John the foreigner, and allows Patrick the foreigner to dig gold for nothing --probably because the degraded Mongol is at no expense for whiskey, and the refined Celt cannot exist without it.
It was in this way that he found out that a respectable number of the tax-gatherers -- it would be unkind to say all of them -- collect the tax twice, instead of once; and that, inasmuch as they do it solely to discourage Chinese immigration into the mines, it is a thing that is much applauded, and likewise regarded as being singularly facetious.
It was in this way that he found out that when a white man robs a sluice-box (by the term white man is meant Spaniards, Mexicans, Portuguese, Irish, Hondurans, Peruvians, Chileans, etc., etc.), they make him leave the camp; and when a Chinaman does that thing, they hang him.
It was in this way that he found out that in many districts of the vast Pacific coast, so strong is the wild, free love of justice in the hearts of the people, that whenever any secret and mysterious crime is committed, they say, "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall," and go straightway and swing a Chinaman.
It was in this way that he found out that by studying one half of each day's "local items" it would appear that the police of San Francisco were either asleep or dead, and by studying the other half it would seem that the reporters were gone mad with admiration of the energy, the virtue, the high effectiveness, and the dare-devil intrepidity of that very police making exultant mention of how "the Argus-eyed officer So-and-so" captured a wretched knave of a Chinaman who was stealing chickens, and brought him gloriously to the city prison; and how "the gallant officer Such-and-such-a-one" quietly kept an eye on the movements of an "unsuspecting almond-eyed son of Confucius" (your reporter is nothing if not facetious), following him around with that far-off look of vacancy and unconsciousness always so finely affected by that inscrutable being, the forty-dollar policeman, during a waking interval, and captured him at last in the very act of placing his hands in a suspicious manner upon a paper of tacks left by the owner in an exposed situation; and how one officer performed this prodigious thing, and another officer that, and another the other -- and pretty much every one of these performances having for a dazzling central incident a Chinaman guilty of a shilling's worth of crime, an unfortunate whose misdemeanor must be hurrahed into something enormous in order to keep the public from noticing how many really important rascals went uncaptured in the mean time, and how overrated those glorified policemen actually are.
It was in this way that the boy found out that the Legislature, being aware that the Constitution has made America an asylum for the poor and the oppressed of all nations, and that therefore the poor and oppressed who fly to our shelter must not be charged a disabling admission fee, made a law that every Chinaman, upon landing, must be vaccinated upon the wharf, and pay to the State's appointed officer ten dollars for the service, when there are plenty of doctors in San Francisco who would be glad enough to do it for him for fifty cents.
It was in this way that the boy found out that a Chinaman had no rights that any man was bound to respect; that he had no sorrows that any man was bound to pity; that neither his life nor his liberty was worth the purchase of a penny when a white man needed a scapegoat; that nobody loved Chinamen, nobody befriended them, nobody spared them suffering when it was convenient to inflict it; everybody, individuals, communities, the majesty of the State itself, joined in hating, abusing, and persecuting these humble strangers. And, therefore, what could have been more natural than for this sunny-hearted boy, tripping along to Sunday school, with his mind teeming with freshly-learned incentives to high and virtuous action, to say to himself:
"Ah, there goes a Chinaman! God will not love me if I do not stone him."
And for this he was arrested and put in the city jail.
Everything conspired to teach him that it was a high and holy thing to stone a Chinaman, and yet he no sooner attempts to do his duty than he is punished for it -- he, poor chap, who has been aware all his life that one of the principal recreations of the police, out toward the Gold Refinery, was to look on with tranquil enjoyment while the butchers of Brannan street set their dogs on unoffending Chinamen, and make them flee for their lives.*
Keep in mind the tuition in the humanities which the entire "Pacific coast" gives its youth, there is a very sublimity of grotesqueness in the virtuous flourish with which the good city fathers of San Francisco proclaim (as they have lately done) that "The police are positively ordered to arrest all boys, of every description and wherever found, who engage in assaulting Chinamen."
Still, let us be truly glad they have made the order, notwithstanding its prominent inconsistency; and let us rest perfectly confident the police are glad, too. Because there is no personal peril in arresting boys, provided they be of the small kind, and the reporters will have to laud their performances just as loyally as ever, or go without items.
The new form for local items in San Francisco will now be: "The ever vigilant and efficient officer So-and-So succeeded, yesterday afternoon, in arresting Master Tommy Jones, after a determined resistance," etc., etc., followed by the customary statistics and final hurrah, with its unconscious sarcasm: "We are happy in being able to state that this is the forty-seventh boy arrested by this gallant officer since the new ordinance went into effect. The most extraordinary activity prevails in the police department. Nothing like it has been seen since we can remember."
___________________________________________________________________________
*I have many such memories in my mind, but am thinking just at present of one particular one, where the Brannan street butchers set their dogs on a Chinaman who was quietly passing with a basket of clothes on his head; and while the dogs mutilated his flesh, a butcher increased the hilarity of the occasion by knocking some of the Chinaman's teeth down his throat with half a brick. This incident sticks in my memory with a more malevolent tenacity, perhaps, on account of the fact that I was in the employ of a San Francisco journal at the time, and was not allowed to publish it because it might offend some of the peculiar element that subscribed for the paper.--Mark Twain.
____________
Footnotes
First published in "The Galaxy Magazine," May 1870. Proofed against reprint in "Mark Twain on the Damned Human Race," Edited by Janet Smith (full cite below), pp. 77-81.
The incident Twain refers to in the footnote occurred during the summer of 1864, when a reporter on the "San Francisco Call". From headnotes to the article in Janet Smith, p. 78:
Mark Twain's maiden effort for the Chinese died . . . in the composing room of the "Morning Call", for commercial reasons explained by his editor. . . . He was subsequently fired. Four years later, in New York, as humor editor of "The Galaxy", he wrote "Disgraceful Persecution of a Boy".
Twain discovered the story that made his fame, "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County," while hiding out from the consequences of reporting police corruption in San Francisco.
Recommended:
"Mark Twain On the Damned Human Race" (NY: Hill & Wang, Paperback, 1962; Special Edition, Hardcover, 1994), Ed. by Janet Smith, Foreword by Maxwell Geismar.
"Hal Holbrook Performs 'Mark Twain Tonight!'" (Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 2006). 2 CDs Box.
"The Best of Hal Holbrook in 'Mark Twain Tonight!'" (Columbia Broadway Masterworks, Columbia/ Legacy, 2002). CD.
"Hal Holbrook in the CBS Television Network Special 'Mark Twain Tonight!'" (West Long Branch, NJ: Kultur Video, 2005). DVD.
"Mark Twain: A Film Directed by Ken Burns" (PBS, 2005). 2 DVDs.
___________________________________________________________________________
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1