This is a very interesting week when it comes to defining what is an individual right in America.
We shared with you earlier insights and perspectives on the Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. There were arguments heard on this case by the Supreme Court yesterday. The question is very simple to comprehend: can the government force individuals to accommodate the demands of others even as it violates their individual First Amendment rights?
Sadly, it was the very same Supreme Court which decided it could unconstitutionally create an individual right, and provide it civil protections…the right to marriage. And so the SCOTUS decided in the Obergefell v Hodges case that same-sex marriage was the “law of the land” and ordered every state in our union to bow in subservient compliance. Unless I read my Constitution wrong, Article III does not grant any enumerated power to the judicial branch to create law…certainly not to create an individual right.
Then again, I am approaching this from a purely constitutional analytical basis, not biased towards any ideological agenda. That’s something liberal progressive socialist jurists cannot assert. Their agenda drives everything. Hence why there’s a concern of black-robed legislation from the bench by activist judges, and why the left seeks to load up lower federal courts with those of their ilk. And exactly why we saw the verdict in the Kate Steinle case due to an activist left wing judge who determined what was admissible in court regarding the criminal history of the illegal immigrant who shot Ms. Steinle. I guess to that judge, Kate’s first unalienable right, life, had little meaning when it came to the leftist ideological agenda of protecting illegal immigrants, and sanctuary cities and states.
And so as we’ll be awaiting a decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, could it be we’re facing the fateful day when the government and a few activist judges, determine if we REALLY do have First Amendment constitutional rights? After all, this case is all about mandating many to accommodate a few, even as the many have their rights trampled.
But, there’s also another very interesting case — legislative action actually — happening on Capitol Hill this week…today as a matter of fact. This piece of legislation provides a very perplexing discussion and once again enlightens us as to who gets to define what our individual rights are.
As reported by Fox News, “Gun-rights supporters are eyeing a big win this week as a bill that would make concealed-carry permits valid across state lines heads to the House floor — though it faces long odds in the Senate amid deep-pocketed opposition from gun-control advocates.
“This is just simple, common-sense legislation that says if you’re a law-abiding citizen … we’re not going to turn you into a criminal just for crossing an invisible state line,” bill sponsor Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., told “Fox News @ Night.”
Hudson says the bill simply attempts to clarify the patchwork of state laws that confuse citizens who can unwittingly get arrested when traveling from state to state.
“All I’m saying is, when I cross the state line, I don’t want to automatically become a criminal,” he said. The three-term congressman also is quick to point out the measure does not attempt to usurp state and local authority with federal law, nor does it ease background checks on gun purchases. The bill has 213 cosponsors, including three Democrats, and backing from 24 state attorneys general. Hudson has tried for several years to get his Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act passed and scored a victory several days ago when it got through the House Judiciary Committee.”
What is amazing to me is that here we are in America, and we need a bill, legislation, in the year 2017 to affirm the Second Amendment? I mean excuse me, but I thought the Constitution was the “law of the land,” our rule of law.
So, someone please explain to me how it is that a law-abiding, legal gun owner can be denied their constitutional right in America? I mean how can it be that I, a legal law-abiding gun owner, retired military officer, cannot travel anywhere across this land armed? Who made the determination that my individual right was not universal in America? Hmm, probably the same chuckleheads who say healthcare is a universal right…or that same-sex marriage is the law of the land.
I think you’re beginning to see my point here. We’re in a very intense ideological battle in America where Constitutional rights are being “trumped” by ideological agendas. You see, if the progressive socialist left, aligned with secular humanists and the radical LGBT lobby, funded by Coloradan Tim Gill — no coincidence that this case before the SCOTUS is from his state — are making their ideological agenda law, we are in essence losing our Constitutional Republic.
The left has determined that our constitutional rights, when confronted by their ideological agenda, have no standing, no relevance, no basis for existence. They make marriage a civil right, and then redefine marriage to meet their agenda, and anyone not in agreement is in violation of THEIR law.
Let me remind you of the story we shared of the catholic university traditional marriage student group who was brought before the campus Sanhedrin because some LGBT students deemed them hateful. And so it is that Mr. Phillips, a simple Christian small business owner has been brought before the Sanhedrin of our SCOTUS who will determine whether he does indeed have a First Amendment right to freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof…as well as his freedom of expression of his faith.
Remember, Tim Tebow taking a knee was disparaged, while Colin Kaepernick taking a knee was celebrated by the progressive socialist left…because they’re redefining individual rights in America. You have no rights if they do not conform to their ideological agenda.
And so here we are in this same week having a vote, asking permission of the government, to enjoy a right declared in our Constitution, the Second Amendment. And there will be those elected officials who will vote no…telling us that they decide we don’t have that right.
What an amazing arrogance of officialdom. And to think there’s a concern that national reciprocity may not pass in the Senate because there may not be 60 votes for its approval? These lords believe they have the power to render us subjects to them, their whims? That they can deny us a constitutional right? And this doggone Michael Bloomberg believes he can buy out our individual constitutional right?
“… Hudson acknowledges the bill has an uphill challenge in the Senate, considering opposition from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Michael Bloomberg, the wealthy ex-New York mayor who purportedly is giving $25 million to the fight. Schumer, in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre in October, slammed such reciprocity legislation and the NRA’s support. “Under this law, if Wyoming or Alabama said any person could carry a concealed gun, they could come to Times Square, Penn Station carrying that gun — concealed,” he said. “The chaos that would result would be utterly amazing.”
No Senator Schumer, there is no chaos in abiding by our Constitution and respecting the rights of the individual American to protect themselves…we do not have 24/7 security like you.
Take for instance, the case of one Shaneen Allen — whom I’ve met: “In one such reciprocity case, a Philadelphia mother faced gun charges in New Jersey after being caught during a traffic stop with a firearm she carries legally in her home state. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie later pardoned her.”
Ms. Allen is a nurse, mother of two boys, and back in October 2013, she was stopped for a traffic violation, and willingly admitted to having a concealed weapon in her car…legally. She was then arrested and was looking at a felony charge and a prison sentence just because she was a law-abiding legal gun owner, but New Jersey decided that she didn’t have an individual right to be armed. After an 18-month ordeal, Governor Chris Christie, after immense pressure, pardoned Shaneen Allen.
Oh yeah, she’s black and had been the victim of a crime, hence why she underwent all the requisite legal proceedings to become a law-abiding gun owner, an honest one. Shaneen Allen simply embraced her individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms, to protect herself. She chose not to be a victim, but a victor, but the government preferred her to be a victim. Imagine her being sentenced to jail, being a convicted felon, and losing the custody of her two boys…and why? Because some arrogant, elitist, white progressive socialists like Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, and others say so…because Shaneen has no rights when it comes to their anti-gun agenda.
I know many of you are paying much attention to the tax cut bill. Again, a trampling on our individual rights, as government decides how much of our own money we can keep. But I implore you, pay attention to the SCOTUS decision in the Masterpiece v Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, as well as who votes against the National Reciprocity Bill. These are clear and present indicators that in the eyes of the liberal progressive left, you have no individual constitutional rights, if they’re not in compliance with the leftist ideological agenda.
Is this still America?
[Learn more about Allen West’s vision for this nation in his book Guardian of the Republic: An American Ronin’s Journey to Faith, Family and Freedom]