RANT: The Federalists and the Antifederalists?


Re: “Neale’s Weekly Gun Rant Volume 14” by Neale Osborn

*** begin quote ***

Part way down he stated, in pertinent part:

There is only ONE way to remove the 2nd Amendment. And you’d think a man claiming to be a lawyer would know that. It’s called “Pass another Amendment”.

Um, no.

There is NO WAY to remove any part of the Bill of Rights, without nullifying the entire constitution and the republic that it purports to create and define.

The constitution was ratified under a binding contract between the Federalists and the Antifederalists, to the effect that the ratification was conditional upon the passage of a Bill of Rights. Therefor, if any part of the Bill of Rights is violated by any means, and that includes its repeal by a new “amendment”, then the whole contract is null and void.

If the contract is void, the ratification is void. 
If the ratification is void, the constitution is void. 
If the constitution is void, the republic is void. 
If the republic is void, there is no “legitimate government” in any legal sense. 
If there is no “legitimate government”, there is, de jure, political freedom in the territory previously governed by the former republic.

Since the bill of rights has been violated by direct act of the congress, the presidents and the courts — the ratification contract, the constitution and the republic are null and void, in any legal sense. No new “amendment” violating the bill of rights or the ratification contract is now needed to produce this result.

The argument form is modus ponens. The conclusion is inescapable, to my mind.

So, in legal contemplation, the part of North America between Canada and Mexico, the Alaska Territory, the former Kingdom of Hawaii and the Crown Colonies are, de jure, in a state of anarchy and political freedom, while being illegally occupied by Imperial Usa, a foreign military power.

For such a state of affairs to transit from de jure to de facto, it only requires that the american militia remove t he invading pretender-government now throwing its weight around.

I recommend 5GW strategy.

Good Hunting,
Michael Bradshaw

*** end quote ***

# – # – #  

“Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” Lysander Spooner (1808-1887), No Treason (1870) http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm#no.6

I’m with old Lysander. I didn’t agree to it, so it doesn’t bing me. 

# – # – # – # – #