Abatis
Platinum Member
Judges cannot rule on undefined “Natural Laws”or inalienable rights
Judge Jackson was correct in restricting her decisions to the law
Certain rights pre-existed the Constitution and were excepted out of the contract which empowered government. That means they are not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution, thus are in no manner dependent on the Constitution for their existence.
The Supreme Court has had no problem being boringly consistent for nearly a century and a half recognizing and enforcing this principle of inherent rights. That they have done it for the right that you have the greatest hostility for seems only fitting.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, not granted by the Constitution thus the right is in no manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.
Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of armed self-defense, in public, from the KKK, by former slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."
Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "
Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”
Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "
Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”
From the Court's inception this principle has been recognized and enforced, that rights are not granted but were excepted out of the powers being granted, otherwise known as "retained' by the people who owned them before the constitution and surrendered no aspect of them to government.
- "The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)
- "The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . ." -- ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)
- "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." -- BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
- The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. -- UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)
- "[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty,. . ." -- DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)
Give up, you have not a single clue what you are prattling on about.