This past week many sites, to include The Federalist Papers Project, linked to a video of Congressman Trey Gowdy’s public hearings. Acting on behalf of the American public he carefully
and methodically destroyed Deputy Assistant Secretary Ms. Burriesci,
representing the Department of Homeland Security, as government officials attempted
to explain the ‘process’ by which American citizens could petition the
government to restore rights which had been removed, those who’d been denied their
right to own and purchase firearms, these same individuals who’d been placed on
the Do Not Fly List.
Congressman Gowdy wanted to know more about the ‘process’; but
what he really wanted was to remind Ms. Burriesci about a different ‘process’, one which
was being ignored completely…
Congressman Gowdy thoughtfully explained his use of the word
‘process’ as he originally referred to it, to be more specific, the term is Due
Process. He reminded the witness that
our constitution limits government’s ability to infringe on any individual’s
God given inalienable rights without Due
Process.
For clarification purposes, Ryan Williams’s entry to the 2010 Yale Law Journal defined this term and concept more
precisely:
“In United States constitutional law, substantive
due process is a principle which allows courts to protect certain rights deemed fundamental
from government interference under the authority of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution, which prohibit the
federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of
"life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
That is, substantive due process demarcates the line between acts by persons
that courts hold are subject to government regulation or legislation and those
acts that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether
the Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve this function
continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and
dissent.”
Timothy Sandefur recorded in, The Right to Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law, as
published via the Cato Institute in 2010:
“In contrast, substantive due process aims to protect individuals against majoritarian
policy enactments that exceed the limits of governmental authority—that
is, courts may find that a majority's enactment is not law, and cannot
be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the processes of enactment and
enforcement actually are.”
In short, there are laws being enforced (far too many) which
are outside of restrictions placed on government, restrictions intended to
safeguard individual God given rights (or Natural rights) and it is important
to remind those in government that they are not above the Constitution and have
no such powers. We are, after all, a
nation dependent on the Rule of Law.
Let me insert a partial transcription of Congressman Gowdy’s
efforts...
“What process is afforded a United States citizen before that
person’s Constitutional right is infringed. That [The President] is fine with
doing it with the Second Amendment.
My question is, how about the First? How about
we not let them set up a website, or a Google account?
How about we not let them join a church until
they petition Government to get off the list? How about not get a lawyer? How
about the 6th amendment?
How about you can’t get a lawyer until you
petition the government to get off the list? Or my favorite, how about the 8th
amendment?
We’re going to subject you to
cruel and unusual punishment until you petition the government to get off the
list?
Is there another
Constitutional right that we treat the same way for American citizens than we
do the Second Amendment? Can you think of one?”
“The No-Fly List itself is a
violation of Constitutional rights all by itself, but to use that illegal list
as a way to snatch other rights away from the people is abhorrent and sets a
dangerous precedent for the future.”
When our government tries to get around the Rule of Law as
if it were outside of restrictions placed on it by the Constitution, at that
time we can say without equivocation that tyranny has replaced our
representative form of government.
Dan Riehl wrote an article the
day after the San Bernardino premeditated attack in which Muslim Terrorists
proudly admitted their association with ISIS and then murdered 14
Americans. Riehl pointed out that
Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, on behalf of the Department of Justice was
more concerned about anti-Muslim rhetoric’s effect on those of that faith than
on the threat posed to the American public.
“Loretta Lynch, at a press
conference yesterday, termed the San Bernardino shootings a “wonderful
opportunity” to change the nature of police work: “We’re at the point
where these issues have come together really like never before in law
enforcement thought and in our nation’s history and it gives us a wonderful
opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change.”
The Obama administration continues to use any gun related
tragedy as a means to launch additional gun control measures. They went to extreme measures to cover this
event, as with other shootings as if guns walked in and shot all those folks
without a Muslim Terrorist holding those guns.
Obama has threatened to implement extreme gun control actions
via Executive Order, effectively bypassing Congress. If you put these two thoughts together we
have a totalitarian effort (tyranny) to eradicate the 2nd Amendment;
but also destroy freedom of speech as protected by the 1st
Amendment.
So, back to Congressman Gowdy’s questions regarding our
government’s attempts to get around the constitution, to get around inalienable
God given rights and deny any American their right to own and bear arms, to
express their thoughts without fear of government interference or
imprisonment… to get around Due Process...
What part of Due Process, more specifically, what part of
substantive due process do these department heads not understand? (Really, you actually consider that a
possibility?) No, under the Obama
administration there is a willful and calculated effort to get around the
constitution.
Democratic
presidential candidate Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as having
“deep flaws” during a September 2001 Chicago public radio program, adding that
the country’s Founding Fathers had “an enormous blind spot” when they wrote it.
Obama also remarked that the
Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to
this day.”
Obama’s promise to America has been, and continues to
be a great Transformation, to make it what (he thinks) it should be. His actions support his promise.
America
will no longer be a land of liberty; but instead will become a totalitarian
communist state where your constitutional republic, your God given inalienable
rights as set down by the Founding Fathers, and without question, Due Process
and the Rule of Law will become a faded memory.
This article has been cross posted to
The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The
Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
No comments:
Post a Comment