by Stephen A. Wait ~ 25th of January, 2023
In referencing the proponents of a constitution absent what is now our Bill of Rights, Brutus writes in his IX letter of January 17th, 1788 – “It is a language common among them, “That no people can be kept in order, unless the government have an army to awe them into obedience;””.
~
Allow me to pose a question: Is President Biden complicit in a desire to undermine the Constitution or incompetent in his ability to uphold it?
To this some may simply reply – Yes. Not an unreasonable answer given the President’s frequent and often idiosyncratic remarks concerning the 2nd Amendment.
“But no Amendment, no Amendment to the Constitution is absolute.”
President Joe Biden, April 8th, 2021
Note that the Chief Executive of the United States offers this without qualification, a substantively unequivocal statement. Is his assertion correct? Indeed, in the context of emendation, it is. Yet he does not seem to propose an achievement of such high bar but rather a lesser threshold of interpretation.
To this remarkable proclamation, no challenges were made of the President for the definitiveness of the 13th Amendment… or the 15th… or the 19th for that matter. Are those Amendments open to interpretation under Joe Biden’s tenure? Likely not, as I suspect in the view of the President and his supporters it is merely the second-class nature of the 2nd Amendment that makes it alone of questionable sincerity.
The careful wording of “, shall not be infringed.” is found only within the 2nd Amendment, seemingly reserved to make a definitive point. Here it resides… a declarative, definitive statement set forth by the framers of our constitution, the same constitution every President swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend.
~
Of late, and now with a degree of predictable regularity, the President references the use of the U.S. military against a citizenry thought too emboldened by the 2nd Amendment.
“What’s happened is that there never been – if you want to – think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15’s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
President Joe Biden, June 23rd, 2021
“For those brave right-wing Americans who say it’s all about keeping America and keeping Americans independent and safe, if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15. You need something a little more than a gun,”
President Joe Biden, August 30th, 2022
“If you need to work about taking on the Federal government, you need some F-15’s. You don’t need an AR-15.”
President Joe Biden, January 16th, 2023
In this regard, the President seems preoccupied with active provocation of the law-abiding citizenry, as if he relishes the idea of ordering a military response against anyone in open defiance of his governance. Why such posturing?
I would offer that aside from the very tragic killing that occurred, the events of January 6th, 2021, at the U.S. Capital, could be seen as a lesson in the 2nd Amendment without the exercise thereof.
Far from the reality of that day, had other than a riot occurred, had the 2nd Amendment been employed with righteous intent, organization, and participation, the course of our country and in fact that of the world would have been forever altered.
It is this very possibility those in governance considered unthinkable, that the Second Amendment reserves for the people, at the discretion of a so empowered majority, the right of rectification in pursuit of constitutional fidelity and avoidance of dissolution.
The basis for such statement finds purchase in the Heller decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The following passages are from Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority:
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 598, (2008).
It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 599, (2008).
One might ask why then, in this modern age, have the people not sought such drastic recourse? Could it be that the people have greater respect for the Constitution than our government does? Indeed, this was assumed by Brutus and the like. It is the people, not the government, who continue to exercise great restraint in the hope against hope for a return to the text and tenets of the Constitution.
Of course, some may suggest that the people are kept in their place by the many quid pro quos with, and intimidation of, the government. While likely never more true, it is my belief that upon arriving at a crucible, those of genuine patriotism will shrug off such coercion and sacrifice all to ensure the proliferation of freedom.
And this, united with the knowledge that all too many of those same patriots serve our armed forces, renders Mr. Biden’s delusion of grandeur impotent.
~
And so, it is for me that the or question remains undecided. I am simply unable to choose a lesser of two evils.
~
Regarding the events referenced prior: It should be noted that if we arrive at such juncture again, albeit in any fashion, governance will certainly be prepared to execute contingencies so now refined. This, as exceptions made to the Posse Comitatus Act, by the Insurrection Act, afford the President great power and discretion to prosecute a campaign using our armed forces against a citizenry deemed unlawful.
…
Regarding Comments in reply to postings and the Submissions of Opinion: 1) With deliberative appraisal, you are invited to expand on, offer anew, or debate the merits of an argument. 2) In the spirit of Mr. Hancock, as expressed in today’s vernacular, you must own it! As public discourse is weakened by the masquerade of internet anonymity, an attribution of true identity (both given and surname) is required ~ i.e., pseudonyms may not be used. 3) Disingenuous commentary will be rejected.
