paleocon wrote:

johnwk wrote:Ok you guys, I believe I’m about to take some heat but I will defend my position if necessary.
The gun law challenged in the SC is un-constitutional for a reason which has nothing to do with guns. The law in question was not enacted by Congress. Under our Constitution Congress, and only Congress, has been granted power:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

Congress has un-constitutionally delegated its power to legislate in all Cases whatsoever within the district of Columbia to the Council of the District of Columbia, created by Congress under the Home Rule Act of 1973. But the Council of the District of Columbia has not been elected by the people of the United States respectively as commanded by our Constitution, and thus, the gun law in question has not been enacted by agents authorized to “Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District. Those authorized to legislate in the district of Columbia are explicitly to be elected by the people of the various United States, and not the residents who happen to live within the limits of Washington, D.C.

Getting back to the Washington, D.C. handgun law. How could it be constitutional when is was not written by the Congress of the United States, which is the only body vested with power to legislate in Washington, D.C.? And, why did the SCOTUS even recognize a law which was not written by the constitutionally authorized legislative body?

JWK

No heat here. But, the same question applies to regulatory agencies who routinely enact "regulations" that are treated as having the force of law. How can Congress legally delegate their legislative powers to un-elected, unaccountable federal employees? I have always maintained most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional and this is at the heart of my claim.

BINGO! A good example of a “regulatory” group not accountable to the people would be the “federal reserve board” consisting of private bank executives who regulate the value of our money by setting interests rates. But Congress, and only Congress, the people’s elected representatives, have been granted power to regulate the value of our money.

A fundamental rule of constitutional law is that a legislature may not “delegate such essential elements of its lawmaking power as its power to declare principles and standards, or general public policy.” [Am Jur. Constitutional Law RULE BARRING DELEGATION]

The power to regulate our nation’s money supply was put in Congress’s hands ___ a body intended to be directly accountable to the people and subject to being fired during election time, especially if their regulation of our money supply was found to be manipulated to serve the best interests of bankers and not serve the best interest of the people, which has been the case with the federal reserve board for several generations.

Bottom line, most of our people’s suffering and misery springs from a Congress and federal government which is in rebellion to the mandates of our federal Constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.


JWK

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, (i.e., the "business cycle") the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered._______ Thomas Jefferson

johnwk wrote:Bottom line, most of our people’s suffering and misery springs from a Congress and federal government which is in rebellion to the mandates of our federal Constitution, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

Amen.  That is the crux of the matter.  And it's also what I've been struggling with recently.  

I believe in the Principles on which this country was founded.  More specifically, I believe whole-heartedly in what our Nation's Declaration of Independence says ........every word of it.

So, now, I find myself encumbered with a responsibility.  I have a DUTY.  It is not optional.  It is not avoidable.  It cannot be shirked or ignored.

Unfortunately, I can't DO my duty.  In fact, I cannot even directly mention what it is.