TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS
By Rocky Stone

These words should be familiar to every American but how many give thought to what they really mean? Simply put, the United States of America is a REPUBLIC. We were founded as a Republic and a Republic we remain today, yet, few people give much thought to that these days and I wonder if it is even taught in schools today. From observing what my 12 year old daughter is taught in school, especially in American History and Civics classes, I am appalled at what they are not taught. For example, kids today, at least in the schools that my kids attend, are not taught about the Constitution, the very core of our laws and government, the document on which this nation was founded. In realizing that I began to wonder just how many adult Americans know about our form of government and just how far from it’s original origin we, as a nation, are began to stray?

Today, just about everything on the new is about the upcoming election, about “party politics”, i.e. debates and mud-slinging. We hear little about issues, at least to the point of how we, as a nation, are to solve the problems that threaten our very existence. What is this “party politics” any way?

Founded as a Republic, our nation is suppose to be “of the people, for the people and by the people”, yet, “We, the People”, have very little to say about any thing. Granted, you can say that we have elected representatives who speak for us, but do we? Do they really speak for us or do they speak in terms of the “Party line”? How many representatives do you know that vote as you wish them to vote rather than how their particular Party votes? That, to me, is one of the main if not the number one problems we face in this country, the people have no voice in reality. Our nation was not founded on parties, in fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that speaks of parties.

Our Representatives each must take an oath of office. That oath states that they swear, before God and the people, that they will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. We, the People must not allow our elected Representatives take that oath lightly, however, it appears that we have become so complacent in this regard that that is exactly what we are doing. This oath is a contract, if you will, between our elected Representatives and We, the People. This oath tells us that our Representatives will protect our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. I fear, in fact, I know that they are not nor are the courts, including the Supreme Court.

The recent passage of the gun bill which allows the government to block the sale of gun to veterans with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prime example. This newly passed law, which was not passed by majority vote of the full Congress but only a partial representative body thereof during the Christmas break, allows the government, mainly the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, to label those veterans with PTSD as “mentally defective”. PTSD is not medically considered as a mental disorder, per se, but is rather listed in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual, DSM IV, the manual by doctors to make medical and mental diagnosis, as an anxiety disorder. Anxiety does not make one “mentally defective”. If it did a great number of our law enforcement personnel, judges, politicians, major business executives, actors and people in ordinary jobs would also fall under this category and be banned, by this new law, from buying a gun. This law is, in my opinion, also, unconstitutional.

The courts have yet to ascertain just what is meant by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and whether or not said Amendment extends the rights of individuals to bear arms or just a state organized militias.

Pointing out that interest in the “character of the Second Amendment right has recently burgeoned,” Justice Thomas, concurring in the Court’s invalidation (on other grounds) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, questioned whether the Second Amendment bars federal regulation of gun sales, and suggested that the Court might determine “at some future date . . . whether Justice Story was correct . . . that the right to bear arms ‘has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.’ ”

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 937–39 (1997) (quoting 3 Commentaries Sec. 1890, p. 746 (1833)). Justice Scalia, in extra–judicial writing, has sided with the individual rights interpretation of the Amendment. See Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, 136–37 n.13 (A. Gutmann, ed., 1997) (responding to Professor Tribe’s critique of “my interpretation of the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the individual’s right to bear arms for self–defense”).

To me, it is clear that until such time as the Constitution is further amended and said amendment ratified pursuant to Constitutional Law that the Constitution means just what it says and is written in such form as to allow even a individual with limited education to understand its meaning. In that regard here is what the courts say:

The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. — Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.

To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. "In expounding the Constitution of the United States," said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1, "every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood. — Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).

The courts are not without duty to keep our elected Representatives in check when they step on the rights of the states and individuals. It is the duty of the courts to protect the Constitutional rights of every American citizen.

The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. They are at liberty — indeed, are under a solemn duty — to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of thye courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution. — Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.

The recent law passed by our Representatives has yet to be challenged in the courts, however, it is my opinion that such a challenge is in order. Our Representatives must be mindful that “We, the People” are not going to continue to sit by and allow them to just walk all over us, at least I hope that is the case. If it is not, if “We, the people continue to be complacent we may soon find that our liberty and freedom that we so cherish is gone.

We give much attention the freedom and the human rights of peoples in foreign lands. We, the government, is ever ready to speak out against any government who dose not grant religious and political freedom to it’s people, yet, if we are paying attention, if we are mindful of what is happening in our own country we see such freedoms slipping away from us almost daily.

The First Amendment of our Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting as establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof”, yet we have seen it come to pass where Congress has done just the opposite, and they want to take it even further and take “One nation under God” from the Pledge to our flag and, thus, “to the Republic for which it stands.” Are we going to sit by and allow that to happen? I surely hope not! The Constitution clear states that our Representatives, our government is to remain out of the business of religion.

Wake up America!! Wake up before it is too late and ourselves asking the question, is this a dream, when they take away what freedoms we have left.