Deep State’ Mortal Threat To 2nd Amendment Rights. What We Can Do About It Right Now

Opinion by Roman Buhler
Editor's Note: AmmoLand News has included this video from 2016, please excuse some legistlative points as they have changed with time.

USA – -( “If Congress Does Not Change Federal Gun Laws, Kamala Harris Promises, She Will Do It by Presidential Fiat”

That was the headline of a recent article in Reason magazine..

We don't know when there will be another anti-2nd Amendment President, but we know that there will almost certainly be another one elected sometime in the coming years.

Such a President could catastrophically impact 2nd Amendment rights and decimate the American firearms industry, with a series of regulatory edicts dictated by un-elected Washington bureaucrats. No vote of Congress would be required.

We cannot defeat this threat simply by winning the next election. Winning an election can only delays the disaster for a few more years. To end the threat we must do more.

We must demand today that our elected officials support permanent curbs on the power of un-elected federal bureaucrats.

But we can't settle for a law, even if we could get one passed in the current deadlocked Congress. A law passed by Congress to curb regulators, could be struck down in Court or repealed by a future Congress.

To permanently curb the administrative state, we must Constitutionally require that major new federal regulations be approved by Congress.

But Constitutional Amendments are difficult to enact, Congress isn't about to propose a Constitutional Amendment on its own, and conservatives are deeply divided over the wisdom of convening a Convention to propose an Amendment.

The achievable solution may be an idea suggested by former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese based on 200 years of American constitutional history: His idea: “Give the states the same power as Congress to propose a specific Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”,

James Madison
James Madison

It turns out that every time in American history that Congress has seen a strong majority of the public and 2/3 of the states in favor of a particular Amendment, Congress has acted.

12 of the 27 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and, most recently, presidential term limits were proposed by Congress under pressure from the states and the public.

Our challenge today is to revive the power of states and citizens to force Congress to propose an Amendment without a convention, that both 2/3 of the states and a majority of the public want.

The good news is that by a more than 2-1 margin voters favor an Amendment to require that major new federal regulations be approved by Congress!

And even better news is that 29 state legislative chambers in 18 out of the 34 states we need to get a 2/3 majority have already endorsed a simple Amendment called the “Regulation Freedom Amendment” that would require that Congress approve major new federal regulations.

The Amendment says:

“Whenever one quarter of the Members of the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate transmit to the President their written declaration of opposition to a proposed federal regulation, it shall require a majority vote of the House and Senate to adopt that regulation.”

In other words, if one quarter of the U.S. House or Senate object to a proposed federal regulation, a majority of both Houses must vote to approve it.

The Regulation Freedom Amendment has been unanimously endorsed by the Republican National Commitee in a Resolution pre-approved by the White House.

Mike Pence was the first Governor to endorse the Regulation Freedom Amendment. Ted Cruz was the first Senator to endorse it. Georgia Senator David Perdue has offered to be a leader of this effort in the U.S. Senate.

Some of the many other endorsers include the American Farm Bureau, the National Taxpayers Union, the 2016 Republican National Platform, former NRA President David Keene and Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt.

Our goal is to make support for the Regulation Freedom Amendment virtually unanimous among those who want to be seen as supporters of curbing the Administrative State and preserving the regulatory reforms of this Administration.

Just as the “no tax increase” pledge re-defined the Republican brand almost 30 years ago, support for “Regulation Freedom Amendment” can define a new generation of elected officials who believe the people should have the final say over the rules that govern them.

You and concerned citizens you know can help advance this effort by asking any Republican elected official:

“Do you think that the rules that govern us should be dictated by un-elected Washington bureaucrats, or should the people have the final say?”

And when an elected official says, “Of course the people should have the final say” you can ask them the key question:

“What is your position on the Regulation Freedom Amendment, endorsed by the RNC with the approval of the White House and by conservatives like Ed Meese and Mike Pence, to require that major new federal regulations be approved by Congress?”

If they haven't heard of it, you can send them a copy of this article, the below flyer and a link to our website

Regulation Freedom Amendment Flyer

They may tell you they have supported a proposed law called the REINS Act that was backed by every voting Republican House Member in the last Congress. The REINS Act would require that some new regulations be approved by Congress.

But the REINS Act is three fatal flaws.

  • First, it could be challenged and overturned in Court.
  • Second it could be repealed or waived by a future Congress.
  • And Third, because it only applies to regulations with a cost of more than $50 million dollars, it may not apply to critical regulations that impact 2nd Amendment rights or religious freedom, and could easily be evaded by bureaucrats who propose regulations with a cost under the dollar cost threshold.

Support for temporary regulation reform that would leave 2nd Amendment rights and religious freedom unprotected should not be enough to satisfy citizens who want real permanent protection from overreaching federal bureaucrats.

So you should insist on getting an answer to the original question.

“What is your position on the Regulation Freedom Amendment that can not be challenged in court or repealed by a future Congress, and that fully protects 2nd Amendment rights and religious freedom?”

And if the answer is “I don't know” you can ask that their office review the issue and let you know their position.

We believe that when offices of most Republicans do the research, they will conclude that the strong Republican and conservative support for the Regulation Freedom Amendment combined with a growing chorus of inquires from grassroots 2nd Amendment and other regulatory reform advocates will persuade those elected officials that it is to their benefit to join the list of those who support the Amendment.

As support for the Amendment grows among Republicans and even among some reasonable Democrats pressure will grow on more Democrats, especially those in swing districts to support the Amendment and demonstrate that they really do prefer “Democracy over Bureaucracy”.

The question “Should bureaucrats keep their power to rule by decree or should we give power back to elected representatives of the people” could be a decisive in the 2020 election, but only if there is a clear contrast for voters to see.

That is why your role can be critical in persuading elected officials to endorse the Amendment and to help make “End Regulation without Representation” a front burner issue for the American public.

Every elected official you help persuade to endorse the Amendment adds to the pressure for reform and makes this issue more visible.

In addition to building a grassroots team who will ask elected officials where they stand, we are also building a team of volunteer advocates willing attend meetings, conferences and conventions to spread the word about how we can take power out of Washington and return it to the people as the President promised to do in his inaugural address.

And we are also building a team of online advocates who will spread the Regulation Freedom Amendment message on social media.

If you would like to learn more or to get more involved in this effort in any way, please visit our website or email us at [email protected] and we will reply to you personally.

The left has demonstrated their desire to replace rule of law by consent of the governed with the tyranny of un-elected Washington bureaucrats.

That is our unpleasant future if we don't act to prevent it.

Not only the 2nd Amendment rights, but our representative system of Constitutional government is at stake.

Roman Buhler
Roman Buhler

If you agree that the abusive power of the administrative state is a threat we can't ignore, and that we must make curbing the authority of un-elected bureaucrats it a major issue in 2020, contact us today.

[email protected]

Thank you for your interest in the 2nd Amendment and in working save freedom in our nation for the next generation.

Roman Buhler is the National Director of the Madison Coalition. He served as Counsel to the Committee on House Administration of the U.S. House of Representatives for 14 years. He was Newt Gingrich's first House Committee Counsel.

  • 46 thoughts on “Deep State’ Mortal Threat To 2nd Amendment Rights. What We Can Do About It Right Now

    1. Mr. Katz,
      It is well acknowledged that Marxists, Communists, etc., and a lot if not all radical left liberals /demorats function essentially and have core beliefs of the lack of God and any Divinity attached to human life and namely the American people under the Constitution via the Bill of Rights. So, in effect this
      expresses itself as atheism and puts that “axiomatic” divine inspiration of the B of R’s and Constitution at a less advantageous, protected standing
      Godsend that it is. What now?

      1. Muslim takeover on every screen in America as introduction to the new government that Islam Don promised.

    2. It is revealed that Operation Hammer conducted by Brennen provided info to Barry of which Barry used to blackmail Roberts on USSC. Roberts is just the first revealed, others were subject to same. Corrupt justices have destroyed the rights of Americans and is why 2A is supreme so it can’t be tampered with. Is why their unconstitutional gun laws are exactly that, unconstitutional. Like letting a thief hold your wallet for safe keeping or paying someone to protect something they intentionally keep in peril so you keep paying for protection. You been scammed! Lied to and ripped off! You don’t store your gold bullion at a friends house and you shouldn’t trust a single person with your rights and is why 2A does not grant the right only enshrines it.

    3. Attention Attention Attention!
      (Illinois gun owners need your help. The below bill is being fast tracked. We need gun groups like GOA and others to issue Alerts)

      A major gun control bill is moving in the Illinois General Assembly that will require ALL gun owners to be finger printed and background check in person at an Illinois State police their expense. The bill as amended also “ENDS” all private sales and transfers.

      Please contact your family and friends in Illinois and ask them to contact their Illinois State Senator and House member and tell them to oppose SB1966 as amended with House Amendment 1 (HA1)

      To learn more go to

      1. And suddenly you’re panicked? After they sold you the right through permit purchases and so forth? Criminally extorted you for about 70 years and now you’re panicked? Quick call the corporate tyrant to be saved? Same corporate tyrant that demands you pay for rights? Trump preparing to hand off Oval Office to Hillary and you’re worried about your gun rights that you gave away many years ago? Police confiscate your firearm if you use it and suddenly you’re concerned over more fake gun laws? By all means go to EMERGENCY STATUS on the very last day of USA. This is classic.

    4. When the rule of law changes at the whim of each tyrant (criminal) depending on which way the wind is blowing you do not have a country but rather tyranny. Has reached the point of tyranny now that 92% of those elected officials openly declare war on citizens chomping at the bit to kill us. Murder of citizens now a political campaign to see who wins. Genocide 2020!

    5. An Article V Convention of States is half way to being called. 14 states have passed Article V resolutions. This is the second and best way to reign in a Government full of Elites who wont reform themselves. Join the movement endorsed by the likes of Antonin Scalia, Tom Coburn, Mark Levin, Jim DeMint to name a few

    6. Taxachusetts would be more than happy to strip away 2A rights. They come closer each year after a liberal judge said our own state constitution has no meaning in this respect.

    7. I am a 2nd amendment supporter and Legal gun owner.Sadly I feel our country has turned communist and our Constitution,Our Bill of Rights and our Freedoms are lost to the socialistic communist ideals of the DEMARATS AND THE LEFT. No matter what we say at the voting places our voice gets drowned out by the non thinking spoon fed leftist libitards.Their ultamit goal turn America into a North Korea, Iran and Venezuela ,just to name a few. All communist dictatorships where the people have no voice.Again these spoon feed leftist are indroctanated into believing the CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS ARE NO LONGER RELEVENT FOR THEIR DREAM OF DEMARAT AND UNITED NATIONS NEW WORLD ORDER

      1. The only way the 2nd Amendment is going to be defended by the population is by civil war on those that are either brain washed by liberal colleges or just plain stupid. The Socialists are never going to stop until they have been removed or controlled.

    8. This proposed amendment won’t get passed and it shouldn’t.

      This article conveniently foregoes an explanation of executive regulatory power. The executive can only pass regulations that Congress has empowered them to do, per the delegation doctrine. A simple way to change any particulr one is to undelegate that power per legislation.

      Aside from the executive having the legal authority, this amendment wont get passed because of the low bar. If all you need is a quarter of each chamber of Congress to challenge a regulation, then the opposition would be challenging every single bit of regulation that came put of the executive and thoroughly slowing down our government. It would defeat the entire purpose of the delegation power if every regulation proposed was challenged.

      This amendment is a bad idea and it won’t get passed because there are plenty of people in government that understand the consequences.

      1. It’s NOT a bad idea to slow down our government. The less work they do, the better off “We the People” are.

    9. This author like too many others, assumes that through either legislation of the courts we can correct the wrongs that have been done. That is not going to happen.

      We are beyond the point I believe our founding fathers would have taken up arms. It is time to start to raise militias. I’ve been approached by number of radio hams in my area wish to form a militia. I will meet with them but my terms are going to be rather stringent. I’m not interested in grabbing a hundred guys together. We need to raise 20 or 30 brigades in my state and this needs to be done in every state. In other words we need a militia of greater than 60,000 members in each state.

      This is not an achievable has that number is only a very small fraction of the number of gun owners in my state. The fact is we cannot rely on most gun owners who would hand over their weapons if ordered to do so.

      I also wish and creating this militia to do it with organizations not that dissimilar from our founding fathers Committees of Correspondence and safety. And wish to involve every constitutionally minded sheriff in that process.

      Obviously we’re going to need to recruit people with a wide variety of skill sets. The civilian oversight that I wish to structure over the militia would be responsible for the appointments of officers and for proscribing the training.

      They will also exist to supplant the current government structure when the time comes. It will be convenient to have various Sheriff’s Department’s available when that happens.

      A civil war is coming and it is entirely unavoidable at this point and we need to face that fact. If we don’t face this fact and face it together we shall forever lose our freedom and our Republic

      1. Sadly most states have outlawed militias or regulated them so much that it is impossible to get the word out. They think that they will become overly militant and become the next SS aka NAZIS

        1. Funny you should use that word because that was the very definition of DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, that was Hitler’s party. I think people should know that.

          1. We ultimately became a crown colony ruled by a foreign country called Washington DC. Dictated to by a corporation called UNITED STATES CORPORATION that has no legal authority outside of the country of Washington DC.

    10. The Constitution cannot be nullvoid nor restricted foreas it is a binding document of the people, by the people, for the people, to endow “creatures of statute’ actors/agents to administrate In good faith the Government we created. Indeed any act to subvert, coerce, threaten our Constitution thru Legislative sophism is an act of war and The United States Constitution mentions over and over Insurrection! Furthermore it is every citizens duty to rise up and overthrow any agent/actor engaging in incitement to strip Americas founding document. Moreover threatening Americas Constitution whether verbal or physical is Unconstitutional. Threatening any agent /actor that tries to restrict, subvert, coerce The United States Constitution is Constitutional.

    11. Brain dead stupid, or shill with a hidden agenda?

      Any and all regulations that have not been passed by Congress do not have the force of law. WHY? Because the Constitution only granted Congress the authority to legislate, and said Constitution did not grant Congress the authority to delegate any of the powers that was granted to it.

      Most of the problems in our country are because people don’t know the Constitution, and then don’t realize that only we the people can hold the federal government accountable. If we would start sueing, prosecuting, and hanging members of the federal government that violate their oath of office, which is an act of treason against the people, all of us would be better off.

    12. Well, if we’re gonna tip our toes into the fantasy pond that is a Constitutional Amendment, in our bitterly divided country, why not propose one that says:
      Anyone proposing, writing, enabling and/or simply supporting any/all forms of regulations on the People’s Second Amendment Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, must within 30 days stand before a Sedition Tribunal with death penalty implications. Those that are found guilty must stand naked in front of a public firing squad within 30 days of conviction.
      We’d see the democrat terrorists desire to usurp our Constitution end overnight.

      1. Response to Wiz: The U.S. Constitution has 7 Articles, not 9. I assume that reference to an “Article 9” was inadvertent on your part. You may have meant to refer to the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which sets forth:

        “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Academicians have discussed the import and relevance of the Ninth Amendment to the first Eight, and to the Tenth, but the U.S. Supreme Court has, historically, made little reference, if at all, to it. But, the Ninth Amendment, as the Tenth, is clearly important. The Framers of the Constitution certainly would not have drafted what became the content of the Ninth Amendment, and the States would not have agreed to ratification of the Constitution with inclusion of the Ninth Amendment if the Framers and States did not believe it to have critical importance to the rights and liberties of the American citizenry.

        The importance of the Ninth Amendment to the framework of our Nation has, in the last several years, being looked at anew, by legal scholars. Be that as it may, you are correct in your observation that the original Ten Bill of Rights can never be erased, lawfully. While Article V of the Constitution sets forth the procedures for amending the Constitution, Article V cannot be used, lawfully, to alter, much less abrogate, outright, any one, or more of the first Ten Amendments. The Arbalest Quarrel has made this point itself, on many occasions, in several of its own posts. And, while legal scholars may disagree with this idea as something well beyond the pale of accepted reasoning on Constitutional law, we, at the Arbalest Quarrel, have concluded that Article V procedures can never amend or abrogate the Bill of Rights; for, to do so, would destroy the very fabric of the Nation. That hasn’t stopped some people from attempting to do so and, most particularly and disturbingly, retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who has called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment.

        Since his retirement from the high Court, John Paul Stevens has, in a New York Times Op-Ed, called first for amending the Second Amendment, and, later, as I recall, in a second Op-Ed, in the same newspaper, called for repealing the Second Amendment altogether. The idea is audacious to say the least, even if some believe that, even if impractical, in theory, at least, no part of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is beyond the power of Article V amendment or abrogation. Indeed, radical Left extremists would assert, that a restructuring of the Federal Government, along with a restructuring of the relationship of the Federal Government to the States and to the American people is possible, and, in fact, necessary to achieve their Marxist goals, and that Article V provides a primary mechanism for doing this. But, the Bill of Rights, and, particularly, the Second Amendment, is a critical back-up Fail Safe device, the ultimate Fail Safe back-up device, built into the very fabric of the Constitution, and built into the Constitution for a very good reason: namely to prevent just this sort of insidious manipulation of the Constitution by those bent on destroying our Country from within, as we see occurring today, and occurring blatantly and audaciously by the Radical Left, with support from Billionaire NWO Globalists both inside and outside the Nation, all of whom seek to take down our Nation, and to bring our Nation eventually into the fold of the EU.
        The problem for them is this: The Bill of Rights are not man-made contrivances, to be amended or repealed like federal statutes and even like some post Bill of Rights Amendments. The Bill of Rights—the first Ten Amendments–codifies Natural Law, preexistent in each American citizen, and therefore beyond the power of Government to lawfully amend or abrogate. Lockean Natural law underscores the fundamental, sacred rights of each American citizen and constitutes the very foundation of our Nation as a free Republic in which the will of the people is supreme. The founders of the Republic perceived the Bill of Rights as embodying Divine rights and liberties, which left untouched, secure our free Republic and a truly free people.

        Since Government does not create natural law–which derives from the Creator and not from man–Government has no lawful authority to amend or abrogate the Bill of Rights. In fact, it is through the Second Amendment that the American people derive their power over Government. That power and authority of the American citizenry is not simply symbolic, and was not meant to be merely symbolic. it is very real. It is the people, themselves, and only the people, acting through the Second Amendment, in whom the lawful right, power, and duty exists, who may, if necessary, albeit extreme, lawfully tear down Government if such Government devolves into autocracy. In that regard, it isn’t President Trump who threatens our free Republic. It is renegades within the Democratic Party, along with the mainstream media, together with a multitude of Marxists, Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists, both here and abroad, who threaten our Free Republic. If such anti-American forces do take control of the reins of Government, with the intention of usurping the authority of the American people, then the American people themselves have lawful authority to remove by force such destructive, unlawful forces in Government, thereby reinstating or recreating the Nation in the form the Founders intended, as a Free Republic, and Independent Sovereign Nation, with supreme authority ultimately residing in the people, themselves, as the founders of our Constitutional Republic intended.

        Of course, the radical Left does not accept the notion the Bill of Rights consists of natural, fundamental, immutable, unalienable law beyond which Government has not the lawful authority to “toy around with.” To the Radical Marxist elements, the first Ten Amendments, comprising the Bill of Rights, are nothing more than a collection of man-made constructs; no different in form or kind than any other man-made law; and, so, nothing sacrosanct and inviolate about the Bill of Rights, as the Radical Left conceives it. It is on this basic, elemental idea that Collectivist ideology and methodology diverges, and diverges radically, drastically, from that of the Individualist ideology and methodology, the latter of which operates from the premise that the Bill of Rights comprises a body of natural law, endowed by the Creator on man. Thus, the Bill of Rights serves as a backstop to the ever-present danger that a bloated federal Government presents to the people who have given their consent to Government to govern at all; to govern, then, with express limitations on the exercise of power and authority, and with the understanding, as made explicit through the existence of the Second Amendment, that failure of Government usurpers to adhere to the Constitutional limitations established in the Articles, the people, by force of arms, as need be, will remind such Government usurpers of their rightful place—that they exist below the American people, not above them; and the people will clamp down on those who would usurp the power of the American citizenry; and will clamp down on those usurpers, hard.

        1. Roman Buhler, Good Artlcle. @Roger Katz, good comment. A little long, but really good. You write, “… we, at the Arbalest Quarrel, have concluded that Article V procedures can never amend or abrogate the Bill of Rights…” Any chance of publishing that debate, ahhh in abbreviated form?

          1. Wild Bill, thank you for your remarks. Excuse me for being longwinded in this reply, as well.

            The AQ has, in many of its posts, made the point that the Bill of Rights can neither be amended nor abrogated precisely because the Bill of Rights comprises Natural Law. Natural Law qua Law originating in and from the Divine Creator is Law not created by man; ergo, it is not Law derived from man and, further, cannot be presumed to be derived from man-made law.

            The Bill of Rights is a codification of Divine Law. This idea is a recurring theme running throughout AQ’s posts. The very concept of natural law as existent prior to man-made law and intrinsic to man’s very Being was taken as axiomatic by the Founders of our Constitutional Republic, and the soundness of that premise serves as the very foundation upon which our Nation stands and upon which our Nation has endured.

            We, at the AQ, find it singularly bizarre that some people do not accept the notion of the Bill of Rights as Natural, Divine Law, as self-evident true, axiomatic.

            Consider the remarks of Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, as with the other Left-wing members of the U.S. Supreme Court, do not accept the Bill of Rights as codification of Natural Law, but merely as a man-made artifice, and commencing from that unsound premise flow the serious flaws and fallacies apparent in many of their judicial opinions.

            As an Associate Justice, whose job it is to defend the U.S. Constitution, one would think that Justice Ginsburg would hold our Constitution in high regard. Unfortunately, that is not the case at all. In fact Justice Ginsburg has cast aspersions on our Constitution. Remarking, some time ago, to the new Government in Egypt that was thinking of using the U.S. Constitution as a blueprint upon which to construct its own Constitution, Ruth Bader Ginsburg attempted to dissuade Egypt’s Government officials. In fact, she suggested that Egypt look to the Constitutions of other Countries: Ruth Bader Ginsburg remarked:

            “You should certainly be aided by all the constitution writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa — that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. So, yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”

            Now the Left-wing weblog, tried to give a good spin on Ginsburg’s remarks, asserting that she didn’t mean what she in fact said, namely that she holds our Constitution in low regard. See,

            Yet, from the entire quotation, it is clear that Ginsburg did mean exactly, precisely what she said and, she has been rightfully rebuked for it, all the more so given the fact that she is an Associate Justice of the Highest Court in our Land. She was in fact denigrating a Constitution–our Constitution–that has stood the test of time. Why else would she even suggest to the Government of Egypt that it would be better served if it looked to the Constitutions of other Nations rather than to our own Constitution, which Egypt had in fact intended to use as a blueprint.

            Ginsburg’s entire quotation, far from serving to qualify her damning remarks, solidifies, confirms as accurate, the opinions of those that understand full well that Ginsburg holds little regard for our Constitution. can’t get around that fact, try as it might.

            So, then, is the Constitution of South Africa a better source for constructing a Free Republic, than our own Constitution? Or the Constitution of Canada? Or that of the European Convention on Human Rights?

            However you cut it, the Constitution of South Africa, like those of any other Nation is deficient, horribly deficient, and it is deficient in many respects, one of which is absolutely critical to a Constitutional Republic, and one completely lacking in the Constitutions of any other Nation: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”—but, importantly, a right understood to exist in the people themselves, and in its existence, serves to make clear that Government is forever subordinated to the will of the people.

            The Constitutions of any other Country you look at make clear that Government is not subordinated to the citizenry. Even in Constitutions in those few Nations that set forth the right of the people to keep and bear arms, such “right” isn’t really a right at all, but perceived, rather, as a privilege bestowed on the people by Government. The right to keep and bear arms in those other Constitutions is not accepted as a right preexistent in the people, beyond the power of Government, then, to amend or abrogate or to extract a concession from those upon whom the privilege is granted. Thus, Government controls the citizenry. The citizenry exists more as subjects in those Countries than as citizens. In some cases, the populace is little more than puppets dangling from the strings of Government overseers.

            Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserts, apropos of the Constitution of South Africa: “that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights.”

            Sure! Basic human rights, but one–the most important right of all; the right that serves to keep a Government honest, in its place– “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Without that right, no one is safe from tyranny.

            One would have to believe, from Ruth Bader’s remarks, that some Governments do have the best interests of their people at heart. But do they? Of course not! That is utter nonsense. Taking a look at any Constitution, other than our own, it is manifestly clear that the populace of those Countries are subservient to Governmental overlords. And, most importantly, getting back to our earlier point, none of the “basic rights,” as incorporated in the South Africa’s Constitution–or in the Constitution of any other Nation that happens to have a document akin to a Bill of Rights, for that matter–is understood as Natural Law, beyond the power of Government to amend or abrogate. No other Country, today, accepts the existence of any “right” as “Natural Law.”

            “Basic Rights” that Ruth Bader Ginsburg mentions apropos of her remarks of South Africa’s Constitution are simply man-made constructs, subject to constant amendment or abrogation.

            In the Constitution of the United States, however, the Bill of Rights is understood, expressly, to codify Rights and Liberties emanating from God, not from man. It is precisely this fact, and the imperative of the Second Amendment, specifically, that the worst excesses of our Federal Government have remained in check; have always remained in check, and will continue to remain in check, as long as the Second Amendment and the other nine Amendments are not tampered with.

            It is only because of our Bill of Rights, understood as Natural Law, emanating from God, that our Nation has survived mediocre Presidents like George W. Bush, and such awful Presidents as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, and, of late, Barack Obama.

            Is it any wonder that the Radical Left in Congress, in the Federal Bureaucracy, and in the Press, seek to upend our Constitution: constrain the First Amendment; remove the Second Amendment; revise the Articles; “pack” the U.S. Supreme Court with jurists who will rubber-stamp the Leftist agenda; and seek to create out of whole cloth “new rights,” such as a right to at-will abortion, a right to free college education, a right of illegal aliens to reside here and to receive free health care, free housing, and free education, i.e., at public expense; and “mandate” such other “rights” that, like the aforesaid, are not really “rights” at all–are really nothing more than trivialities, masked as “rights”–things that are simply welfare giveaways through which the Radical Left Authoritarians intend to buy off an electorate, an electorate that is all too willing to forsake its birthright?

            Understand the only rights this Nation’s citizenry requires are the true “rights” bequeathed to the citizenry by a loving Creator. Those true Rights were recognized by the Framers of our Constitution. And the Founders codified those fundamental, immutable, unalienable, sacred Rights in a document incorporated into the Constitution, namely, our Bill of Rights. And those rights are a sacred trust binding Government to the will of the people, whom Government serves. If Government refuses to be so bound, then the American people will remind Government of its subservience to the people; and that may be by force of arms if need be.

            This is what the Radical Leftists fear most. It is their bugaboo: an armed citizenry in whom ultimate power and authority reside. Government has to date accepted its subordinate role to the people by the very fact of the Second Amendment.

            Were the Radical Leftists to succeed in gaining the reins of Government, then our Nation, as a Free Constitutional Republic will cease to exist. Make no mistake about that. We are getting foretaste of what they have to offer through their control of the House. They care not what the Constitution says. They serve their own agenda. Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer, Cummings, Booker, Harris, Gillibrand, and all the rest of them, have no love for the Constitution, or for the American citizenry. They have a vision of this Nation at odds with that of the founders. They intend to destroy this Nation. They are already at work dismantling monuments to our past, revising history, trashing our sacred institutions, and. through propaganda, are deliberately turning our people against themselves. This is why it is imperative that we elect Donald Trump to a second term in Office, and why it is imperative that Republicans continue to hold onto the U.S. Senate, and, ideally, regain control of the House, as well.

            If Trump is reelected, it is unlikely that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer will be able to last another four years on the U.S. Supreme Court, given their age and also given Ginsburg’s ill health. If Trump nominates one, and, better yet, two more jurists to the high Court, then a Republican controlled Senate will confirm those appointments; the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia’s legacy will be preserved; and our Nation as a Free Republic will continue to endure. If, however, Democrats gain control of the Senate and take the Presidency, all bets are off. That possibility is our Nation’s worst nightmare.

            1. @Roger Katz, Thank you for getting back to me. You always have a thoughtful response, and I know that your time is limited.

            2. It should be rather obvious to everyone that today you can no longer tell the difference between the Daemon rats and the Republic Rats they all crawl out of the same hole, they all sleep in the same swamp they are all filthy to the core and if you’re going to try to rely on them you will all lose. Remember we had a president who said that the constitution was nothing more than a worthless piece if paper so my advice , get more ammo get more guns and get the training because it’s coming and it’s only a matter of time.

          1. Agreed ,I always look forward to posts by Mr. Katz and check The Arbalest Quarrel often,Thank You Mr. Katz.

        2. With respect, most of your arguments are wrong.

          Article V sets forth the procedures to amend the Constitution. It doesn’t prohibit the Bill of Rights in particular from never being changed or altered. The Bill of Rights themselves are amendments. If your argument were true, then the 14th Amendment could never have been passed because it alters every other amendment per the Equal Protection Clause.

          All Article V really says, or rather based on its ommission, is that amendments cannot be repealed, they can only be added. However, additional amendments can be passed that subrogate a prior one. That’s the case with the 21st amendment effectively repealing the 18th amendment. The same can be done to any other amendment if it follows the appropriate procedures, including the 2nd.

          1. @Kerrizma, I don’t think that the 18th Amendment was the subject of the natural Rights that the first nine amendments are concerned with. Thus the 18th Amendment can be treated differently.
            I think that the lesson of the 18th Amendment is that bad things happen when proposed changes to our well considered Constitution are incompletely considered.

          2. Kerrizma, thank you for your response.

            You have made your point, and it is a compelling one and it is one that we, at the AQ, are not unmindful of. In fact, the AQ concedes, and has admitted as much in our earlier post—specifically, in the third paragraph of our response to “Wiz,” supra—that AQ’s position on the issue whether the first Ten Amendments can lawfully be amended or abrogated is an extreme view, not accepted by mainstream lay thought or by academicians. But, hear us out. Our position has merit, and we stand by it.

            We begin by way of a little history lesson on another matter entirely, but one that serves as a segue into the issue at hand and our response to your point.

            In the 1930s mathematicians and experts in the area of the philosophy of mathematics and symbolic logic attempted something extraordinary. They undertook to formalize mathematics. That is to say, they attempted to reduce mathematics, through the tools of symbolic logic, to a set of axioms by which and through which all the theorems of mathematics could be derived. It was a massive effort, and it failed. Why? Along came an Austrian mathematician, by the name of Kurt Godel.

            Godel proved that any mathematical system will include some propositions, namely, axioms, that are logically undecidable, so no system of mathematics can ever be self-contained, consistent, and complete. Why do we bring this up? There is an interesting side note, involving Godel.

            Kurt Godel, the brilliant Austrian Mathematician, sought one day, in the 1940s to become an American citizen. He was brought before the immigration judge who would ascertain whether Godel had an understanding of and appreciation of our Constitution. Incidentally, this does not appear to be a requirement for citizenship today. In fact, the Radical Left in this Country that seeks to destroy the Constitution, not surprisingly, has no desire to inculcate in immigrants a knowledge of and appreciation for the Constitution, and for our history and our system of governance. But, let’s get back to the story.

            The scientist Albert Einstein and the mathematician Oskar Morgenstern, who had both, previously, become American citizens, and who were good friends of Godel, served as his witnesses, vouching for his high ethical principles. Godel was asked whether he understood and could appreciate the U.S. Constitution through which our Nation would forever endure as a free Republic. The perspicacious scholar told the immigration Judge that the U.S. Constitution was internally inconsistent; that the Constitution had a loophole through which the Nation could, lawfully, be converted into a Dictatorship; and Godel went on to say that he could prove it.

            Needless to say, the Judge did not expect to hear this and he certainly did not wish to hear this. The Judge did not need to be lectured about the very possibility of an inherent flaw in the Constitution by an immigrant. Wisely, Morgenstern and Einstein urged Godel to desist, and Godel went on to become a citizen of the United States.

            So, then what is the flaw in our Constitution that might allow our Nation to lawfully be transformed into a Dictatorship, sans illegal suspension of the Constitution or a coup?

            Godel never explained, and there has been speculation since. But, the answer is clear, and it has to do with the issue whether the Bill of Rights can be lawfully amended. It cannot. We explain.

            Understand, the framers of our Constitution were beset with a maddening problem involving both formulating the text of the Constitution and one involving the further deeper problem of contextualization.

            The founders, grudgingly, realized the need for a strong federal Government through which threats from outside the Country could be effectively thwarted. However, they knew that creating a strong federal Government could well threaten the citizenry and the States, from within. This posed a seemingly insurmountable dilemma for them. How then were they to deal effectively with the dilemma?

            First, Government power and authority would be divided between three co-equal Branches—something Nadler and Schiff don’t seem to understand or, if they, do, it is something they do not appreciate. That would keep each of the three Branches, the major players, from usurping the power and authority of another Branch. But, how, then, are the American people to be insulated from the Government itself, operating against the citizenry? Even if Government’s substantial power and authority resides within specific, well-defined parameters, that power is still immense.

            So, then, second, to keep the federal Government in check, a specific set of “natural rights”—very powerful, vast, and unlimited rights and liberties, already residing in the people themselves, would be codified. In particular the freedom of speech, through which the public would, hopefully, be kept well-informed, and the right to keep and bear arms, would serve to thwart Government overreach and subjugation of the people.

            Having just thrown off the yoke of one tyrant, George III, the founders of a Constitutional Republic had no desire to be, unwittingly, creating the framework for instituting a new tyranny.

            And now to your point, and Godel’s point of an apparent internal inconsistency in the Constitution.

            Article V does provide the mechanism for amending the Constitution. But, if the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights were construed as mere man-made creations, then, yes, de jure repeal of one or more of them would allow, lawfully, for the creation of a Dictatorship, Godel’s apparent point.

            Now, Godel could not have known, as it is not expressly stated anywhere in the Constitution, that the Bill of Rights are a codification of Divine Law, preexistent in the people.

            It is difficult to believe that the Founders could be so obtuse as to fail to perceive that Article V could, lawfully, be used as the mechanism through which the Nation could devolve into tyranny which could very well happen, and happen lawfully, if Article V could override the Bill of Rights. The Constitution would, then, bear within itself, the seeds for its own destruction.

            It was well understood by the founders that the Bill of Rights are not conceptions of man, but are derived from the Creator. Thus, the founders must have deemed the Bill of Rights to codify a different kind of law–law that transcends man-made law and, so, law that is not subject to amendment or abrogation. We must either accept the truth of these premises or accept the possibility, as Kurt Godel had, long ago, conjectured, that the U.S. Constitution is internally inconsistent, incorporating within it the seeds for its own destruction, namely and specifically, the means through which tyranny can envelope the Nation, and in a manner that would be all very nice and legal.

            1. @Roger Katz, Most entertaining. You never disappoint. But Kerrzima proclaims that, “… the 21st amendment effectively repealing the 18th amendment. The same can be done to any other amendment if it follows the appropriate procedures, …” Can you speak briefly to that proposition?

    13. Do not make it easier to amend the constitution. You did not think this through. Liberals would cover us up with SJW crap, and anti-2A crap. Keep it difficult, suck it up, and cache some guns & ammo just in case.

    Leave a Comment 46 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *