This U.S. Supreme Court isn't about Intellectually and Reasonably applying Constitutional Law to todays Social and Political Issues. It's about finding any excuse to install Fascism in the U.S. PART 1. (UPDATE)

 

THE RULING STRIKING DOWN NEW YORKS LAW ABOUT THE PUBLIC CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS, WAS "JUSTIFIED" BY THE OPINION OFFERED BY JUSTICE THOMAS, WHO WROTE THE FOLLOWING FOR THE MAJORITY:

"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

Number one is the fact that he is interpreting the history of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW INCORRECTLY.

All Constitutional Rights, are considered to be ABSOLUTE, in the form they are presented in the Document. Government,(COURTS), PLACE AND IMPLEMENT GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS ON SUCH BEHAVIORS. NO ONE WAS REQUIRED TO ASK PERMISSION IN EVERY SINGLE CASE THAT CAME UP INVOLVING THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THE COURTS STEPPED IN WHEN INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS WERE MISUSING OR ABUSING A PARTICULAR RIGHT. Citizens did not have to prove that they had the "RIGHT" TO ANYTHING, COURTS HAD TO STEP IN AND SAY "NO YOU DO NOT," OR "YES, YOU DO."

THAT IS HOW WE GET "CONTINGENT" RIGHTS.

You need to stop thinking of ROBERTS, THOMAS, ALITO, KAVANAUGH, GORSUCH, AND BARRET AS LEGAL SCHOLARS OR PROFESSIONALS. THEY ARE NOT. THEY ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FASCIST STOOGES WORKING FOR THE GOP. THEIR GOAL? TO UNDERMIND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC FOR A FINAL TAKEOVER LED BY THE "NEW" REPUBLICAN PARTY, WHO SEE STALINIST RUSSIA/HITLERS GERMANY AS THE MODEL FOR THE NEW U.S.

THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE THAN JUST THE 2ND AMENDMENT: ABSOLUTE RIGHTS AND CONTINGENT RIGHTS.

 

In a recent article Titled; "BY DEFINITION: GUN CONTROL, AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT," I began an analysis of the Meaning contained in the TERMINOLOGY used in the 2ND AMENDMENT. To complement that line of reasoning, I have decided to use this post to look at other parts of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and see if that can aid us in properly interpreting the true meaning contained in the 2nd Amendment. 

To do this, we must understand the following: THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONTAINS TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RIGHTS THAT WERE CREATED AND DRAFTED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS, AND INTERPRETED BY SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PRECEDENT.

ABSOLUTE RIGHTS- RIGHTS THAT CAN NEVER BE LOST OR TAKEN AWAY BY THE STATE. (ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE GIVEN UP VOLUNTARILY.) ALSO, THEY ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON SPECIFIC EVENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

For Example:

   Amendment VI- INCLUDES SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.

  "All criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

    

CONTINGENT RIGHTS- RIGHTS EXTENDED TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAT ARE SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE LIMITATION OR TERMINATION DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUALS ACTIONS AND/OR INTENT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS OR SPECIFIC EVENTS. 

    For Example:                                                                                                                        

The First Amendment reads as follows: 

""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

FROM THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WE FIND THE FOLLOWING CONTINGENT RIGHTS.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH-  DOES NOT ALLOW US TO SAY ANYTHING 

WE WANT, ANYWHERE WE WANT, AT ANY TIME, AND USE "FREEDOM

OF SPEECH" AS A UNIVERSAL DEFENSE TO AVOID SANCTIONS OR 

PUNISHMENTS.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION-  DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY, PHYSICAL

ABUSE, CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN DRUGS, DISCRIMINATION IN THE

EMPLOYMENT SECTOR...AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE COVERED 

BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

FOR OUR PURPOSES, WHEN DISCUSSING THE 2ND AMENDMENT, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

THAT EVEN IF YOU HOLD TO THE OPINION THAT EVERY CITIZEN HAS A "RIGHT" TO OWN OR POSSESS A GUN OR FIREARM, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE STATE CAN NOT SET GUIDELINES OR RULES TO:

-  RESTRICT THE FIREPOWER OR DESTRUCTIVE POTENTIAL OF EACH FIREARM.

-  SET A MINIMAL STANDARD OF INTELLECTUAL AND/OR

MENTAL COMPETENCE OF THOSE OBTAINING SUCH A WEAPON.

-  MAINTAIN STANDARDS OF MORAL CHARACTER (CRIMINAL) OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY POSSESS A GUN.

HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT UNRESTRICTED SPEECH AND UNINHIBITED RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, IN THE HANDS OF UNSCRUPULOUS AND SELF- CENTERED INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS, CAN CAUSE SUCH DESTRUCTION THAT IT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF WHOLE SOCIETIES AND CULTURES. THIS IS WHY EVEN OUR MOST REVERED "RIGHTS" MUST BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED FOR POSSIBLE ABUSE.

SO, SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO SUBJECT EVERY AMERICAN TO A LEGAL SYSTEM WHERE THE "RIGHTS" OF FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE "RIGHT"  TO POSSESS AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON WITH AN AMMO CLIP THAT COULD KILL SCORES OF PEOPLE IN ONE OR TWO MINUTES?

To find a reasonable solution or compromise,

we must ask the following questions.

Question #1-  Do we Agree that there are certain Individuals and/or Groups

that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO FIREARMS. If so, who and why?

Question #2-   Have Previous Judicial Decisions and Legislative Actions set

 PRECEDENTS as to what ACTIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE and COVERED BY THE

"BILL OF RIGHTS" SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

WHAT MANY AMERICANS SEEM TO FORGET IS THE FOLLOWING:

YES, IT SEEKS TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT

INTRUSION INTO THE LIVES OF ITS CITIZENS, BUT IT ALSO...

...CREATES GUIDELINES THAT THOSE SAME CITIZENS DO NOT USE

THE "BILL OF RIGHTS" TO ABUSE AND HARM OTHER CITIZENS WITH

UNREASONABLE, MALICIOUS, AND UNJUSTIFIED WORDS AND ACTIONS.

Question #3- CAN ANY PROPOSED LIMITATIONS ON THE 2ND

AMENDMENT BE...

-   ...UNACHIEVABLE, OR WILL NOT

   PRODUCE DESIRABLE RESULTS?

-  ...AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN 

   ON THE LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER?

-  ...A PUNISHMENT ON HONEST GUN OWNERS, INSTEAD OF

   REINFORCING THE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS THEY

   ALREADY MAKE?

You can help support a life-saving bill. SANDY HOOK PROMISE.

 

David,   Accidental shootings are preventable. Yet every day, it seems like there’s a new story of a family devastated by an accidental shooting or suicide. Kids shouldn’t be able to access dangerous weapons or medications – but in reality, they often do.  The Kid PROOF Act can help stop these heartbreaking tragedies. This recently introduced bill can prevent kids from accessing dangerous items they shouldn’t have. Will you take action? Urge Congress to help prevent accidental child shootings and injury.  The Kid PROOF Act will reduce accidental deaths, including suicide and overdose, in young people. It makes sure more people can have access to lethal means safety supplies, such as a safe or lockbox. The bill supports grants, so children’s health providers can help families store lethal means at no cost to them.  This bill can save lives, and your legislator has the power to help pass it into law. No family deserves to endure the heartbreak of a totally preventable death at home. Storing medication and firearms securely can stop a tragedy in its tracks. Please, take action and urge your legislator to support the Kid PROOF Act in Congress.     Take Action Thank you for being a champion to protect our Nation's precious children and families.   Natalie Tietjen  Senior Manager, Federal Policy

CBS NEWS: Trump's businesses got at least $7.8 million in foreign payments while he was president, House Democrats say.

By Kathryn Watson, Stefan Becket

Washington — Donald Trump's businesses received at least $7.8 million in payments from foreign governments and government-backed entities from 20 countries while he was in the White House, according to a new report by House Democrats.

Drawing upon 451 pages of documents received from Trump's longtime accounting firm Mazars and a federal agency, Democratic staffers on the House Oversight Committee on Thursday issued their 156-page report entitled "White House for Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump." 

The records, the report said, "demonstrate that four Trump-owned properties together collected, at the least, millions of dollars in payments from foreign governments and officials." The Democrats alleged these payments violated what's known as the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts or other benefits from foreign countries without congressional approval.

"This report sets forth the records showing foreign government money — and all the spoils from royals we can find — pouring into hotels and buildings that the President continued to own during his presidency, all in direct violation of the Constitutional prohibition," said Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee.

The Democrats noted that they had access to a limited number of financial documents and that "the foreign payments to President Trump identified in this report are likely only a small fraction of the total amount of such payments he received during his presidency." 

Where the payments came from

The Democratic report focuses on payments to four Trump-controlled businesses: the Trump hotels in Washington, Las Vegas and New York, and Trump Tower in Manhattan. 

While Trump turned over day-to-day operations of his businesses to his sons when he entered the White House in 2017, he declined to divest his assets and retained "personal ownership and control of all his businesses, as well as the ability to draw funds from them without any outside disclosure," the report alleged. This arrangement, Democrats said, "reinforced (rather than severed) his ties to his businesses and enabled him to prioritize his personal interests over those of the nation."

During his presidency, the Trump International Hotel in Washington attracted many foreign diplomats and dignitaries hoping to mingle with Trump allies and administration officials. According to Trump's financial disclosure reports from when he was president, he earned more than $40 million from the D.C. hotel in 2017, and $40.8 million the following year.

Despite Trump's frequent criticism of China and insistence that the country was taking advantage of the U.S., the majority of foreign payments included in Thursday's report came from the Chinese government and two state-owned entities.  

The payments totaled nearly $5.6 million at properties including Trump Tower, and the Trump International Hotels in Washington and Las Vegas, the report found. The bulk of the payments came from the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which paid $5.35 million in rent for space in Trump Tower from February 2017 to October 2019.

The nation that spent the second-most at the Trump properties, according to the report, was Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government spent more than $615,000 at Trump World Tower in New York and the Trump hotel in Washington from 2017 to 2020.

The report noted that Trump praised Saudi Arabia and mentioned "his transactional relationships" with the kingdom before taking office. During an August 21, 2015, rally in Alabama, Trump said Saudi nationals had spent millions of dollars on his apartments. 

"Saudi Arabia, I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million," he said. "Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much!" 

The report said that Trump "oversaw several highly consequential decisions on a range of issues involving U.S. policy towards Saudi Arabia" while his businesses were receiving payments from the Saudi government. The Democrats noted Trump's response to the 2018 death of Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident Jamaal Khashoggi, in which he publicly doubted the conclusion of the intelligence community that the Saudi crown prince had ordered his killing. 

Qatar follows Saudi Arabia's spending, with $465,744 spent at Trump World Tower. Nearly all of the remaining payments, from countries including Kuwait, India, Malaysia, Afghanistan, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates, occurred at the Trump International Hotel in Washington.

The fight over emoluments

Trump's business dealings as president were the subject of three major court cases while he was in office, the first of which was filed in 2017. The cases, brought by Democratic lawmakers, several states and an oversight group, were the first legal battles over the Emoluments Clause, but failed to resolve questions about the definition of an "emolument" or the scope of constitutional provision. The Supreme Court dismissed two of them once Trump left office and declined to review the third.

The Trump campaign didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the new report. Trump dismissed the "phony Emoluments Clause" and concerns about his business dealings in 2019.

The Trump Organization has said it voluntarily donated proceeds from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury every year from 2018 to 2021. In 2017, the Trump Organization said it would rely on foreign representatives to self-report if they were paying a Trump company for something in their official capacity. 

The company said it donated $191,538 in foreign payments in 2019, $105,465 in 2020 and $10,577 in 2021.