there are many explications of intent, grammar, semantics – of the time and place – available. Here is just one:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese463.html

original intent is critical, but it has long since been thoroughly demolished, AND is much too far removed, temporally, for the majority of people to even comprehend, due to ultra short time preferences and attention spans…just look to this very blog and all the emphasis on ‘the current administration’, as if that is focal….

Mr. Ringer…the purpose of a blog is to drive traffic so as to improve standing in search engine results…allowing posts to accumulate for a week at a time and then dumping them en masse into forum kills conversation and momentum, thereby severely attenuating the realization of your goal. Recommend you address this……..

http://www.youtube.com/user/thealexjoneschannel?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/7/0lksDT8EoXE

Mr. Nugent’s most recent book “Ted White and Blue is now on the New York Times best seller list. Some people smirk and don’t take Mr. Nugent very seriously, because he tends to be melodramatic, but I recognize a winner when I see one. In fact, I have made more than one comment on Mr. Nugent on this very blog over a year ago. It’s no surprise to me that Mr. Nugent is selling out every seat on his latest tour.

And, more importantly, it is no surprise that Mr. Nugent is helping to spear head the natural right to keep and bear arms. Mr. Nugent is a complete package who appeals to John Wayne types and many others who don’t like to be told what to do by the damned government.

Currently, I’m in Arizona where starting on July 29 it will be legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Now that’s what I call freedom. Thank you Barry Goldwater and all the others with like minds for helping to preserve a tradition of freedom in Arizona.

During my current forth of July road trip—which started out in Las Vegas and is now just leaving Bryce Canyon—I discovered a hand written note from John Wayne that was written to John Ford containing the above quote. The note is on public display inside of Duke’s old cabin right next to Goulding’s Lodge, which is just outside of Monument Valley.

Monument Valley was one of Duke’s favorite locations to film great American classic movies such as The Searchers. These types of classic movies helped define American culture and create a larger than life image of America, which, in turn, gave America a cultural victory over the rest of the world.

Americans often overlook the importance of cultural icons and how they shape our world. At times, cultural icons can shape our world far more than a President, Congressman, or a Supreme Court Justice. In fact, culture often shapes government and the laws that the government passes and the interpretations thereof.That’s why iconic men are so very important to our natural rights, including our gun rights.

The Duke knew that he was an icon and he fully understood the formula which made him one of the biggest movie stars in history. That’s why Ford and he made the long and very expensive journey all the way out to Monument Valley to film on location. Without the monuments, which were a key ingredient to an grade A , gun-slinging western, then Mr. Wayne would not have been such an indelible part of American history.

Sadly, there are no replacements for the American movie icons that helped preserve the natural rights of Americans, including gun rights. The men are gone, but the monuments of Monument Valley remain. Whether or not we Americans know it, Monument Valley and like places, have been good to all of us.

Patiently the monuments wait for the next duke who is man enough to stand in their shadow.

Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional
July 8, 2010 06:55 PM
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Tauro wrote. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”

Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered “such an essential element of state power” that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.

“But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states,” Tauro wrote. “That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government’s long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.”

Gay rights activists cheered the ruling, saying it affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples.
The Boston-based group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders had, in March 2009, brought one of two suits challenging the law, on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts who contended that it violated their federal constitutional right to equal protection.

“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer from the group who argued successfully in the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court case that first legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”

Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought the second suit challenging the law, also applauded the ruling. Her office had argued that the federal law, known as DOMA, violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.

Coakley’s office also contended that DOMA exceeds Congress’s authority because it requires Massachusetts to violate the constitutional rights of its residents by treating married same-sex couples differently from other married couples in order to receive federal funds for various programs.

“Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution,” Coakley said in a statement. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage condemned the ruling. Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute called it “another blatant example of a judge playing legislator.”

………………………

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html

What many of us are doing now is simply discussing, comparing, and debating over our observations on the “process” of collapse, and although many of us are proposing solutions and strategies to ride out the coming storms of perceived political and societal upheaval, it would appear to me that the process has gone so far that it now must literally force it’s course due to factors that have gone beyond our collective will to reverse it or control it.

The course that we are on as a nation seems to have taken on an inevitable process of it’s own with a few people still cognizant enough to aware and understanding of what is occurring and how this is all occurring, and not these few lights in the wilderness are unable to bring together a focused and fortified consensus to effect any reversal in the present trajectory in our national death spiral.

Almost everyone has learned how to “game” the system for their own personal short term benefit….
Our political class is corrupt.
Our judicial and legal class is corrupt.
Our corporate class is corrupt.

The now substantial parasitic class is insatiable.
And the ever diminishing middle class is hopelessly distracted with trivial externally validating attachments that they can neither clear their minds to grasp the gravity of what is occurring from the matrix of mass societal corruptions nor find the political numerical will to stand up to the other entrenched vampiric classes who are literally eating them alive.

Most of the middle class people in this country who are being preyed upon still feel they have something to lose, and by still having something to protect, they experience a fear to risk losing what materialistically and financially remains.

As a result, their collective will to forcefully stand up and declare the present corrupt classes of power holders for what they are, is sporadic and ineffectual.

Until enough people have lost enough material and financial goods to create a more focused and impassioned unified force to effect change from literally having nothing left to lose, the current progression of dismantling our system and thus our nation will continue.

Our tainted judicial and legal classes are just one of the obvious symptoms of a far greater insolvency in the integrity of a national machine where all the gears are beginning to grind and the machine is breaking down as a result of multiple points of friction.

The best we can do is hope the government crashes and then go back to a better constitution and then to a better articles of confederation and then Natural Law.

The only place where this argument may be supported is under the attainder clause. This was supported in U.S. versus Brown, an attainder case involving the Communist Party.

The doctrine of general law is only applicable under that clause as well… and has been strongly deviated from. The objective was to destroy the system of castes and classes in Britain.

Part of the constitution’s genius is always painted as it’s built-in ‘amendability’. This is a red herring. There simply aren’t that many laws (of the natural variety, which you mention), and all of them have already been discovered. Legislation, which is invention and not discovery, otoh, is infinite – that is why and how the federal register gets to be 80,000+ pages, and counting (as of 2008, according to wikipedia).

We already have monopolized wholesale counterfeiting of ‘money’ (legal tender), we have the same in ‘law’ (legislation) – both abject and abysmal failures (except from the perspective of the millions whose bread is thereby buttered). An infinitely amendable constitution is more of the same; how many chimeras does it take to screw in a light bulb? lol….

The founders, and their apologists (devotees? parishioners?) clearly want it both ways, cake on a plate and the same cake in their tummies….

When Jefferson said, “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”; and John Adams said, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”; and when Ben Franklin said, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” and “A republic, if you can keep it, madam…”, how do you reconcile that the men who knew all about democracy went ahead with a constitution that had it’s obsolescence (subversion) already built into it?

These guys, long dead, have been put inside your head, and kept there, for a reason. Until you get them, and their contract-which-is-not-a-contract into logical, and historical, perspective, you haven’t got a chance at coming to a valid conclusion.

In his most recent article Robert Ringer points to the use of a comma instead of the word “and” in the second Amendment where the well regulated militia clause is separated from the right of the people clause to keep and bear arms, as an error by the Founders. May I disagree with this view by saying that the Founders were wordsmiths of the first order and they effectively used punctuation, as well as transitional words and phrases. Additionally, nearly every word and mark of the draft documents were debated in committee and general session of the Constitutional Convention. Although we are often taught that commas are used to help us add ‘breathing spaces’ to sentences they are, in fact, more accurately used to organize blocks of thought or logical groupings. In study of this question I am convinced that the comma between those clauses was written to mean “and.” The Bill of Rights was all about individual rights and states’ rights.

Detractors of the Second Amendment have done a good job of shifting the argument off point; original intent. In order to fully understand original intent, and if we mean to honor original intent, then it is imperative that the judiciary read and understand the Founder’s writings, notes and debates. Among these are the Federalist Papers. During the recent Senate Hearings concerning the appointment of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court I don’t recall hearing any questions from the committee members regarding the writings of Hamilton, Madison or Jay. A question eliciting a viewpoint concerning the construction of the Second Amendment might have been enlightening – much like the discussion we’re presently having. For example; “Ms. Kagan, in reading the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what are your general views regarding the linkage between the militia clause and the people clause?” Also, would you mind commenting on what the word “arms” in this particular reference includes and excludes?” Finally, “does the Second Amendment restriction on the Congress also apply to the states and local government?”
These type of questions wouldn’t be asking how she might rule on an upcoming case…they deal with the foundational views of the U.S. Constitution, concepts of checks and balances, and jurisdiction. The left leaning in this country continue to shift the debate about the law of the land to restrictions on the people rather than restrictions on the federal government. Remember, the U.S. Constitution is a federal code otherwise the individual states wouldn’t have constitutions as well. Robert is right when he reminds us that a 5 – 4 vote in favor of the right of the people is not a victory to celebrate – on the contrary, it is cause for concern. If you love liberty, this recent vote really means the court is only one vote away from rendering the Bill of Rights irrelevant, obsolete; meant for a different people at a different time.

This process also needs to be modified as it allow just another avenue of politics as usual and delegates way too much power to an elected office.

Don