Monthly Archives: July 2022

Published: 7/25/2022 4:28:55 PM

Id like to respond to the opinion piece in the July 15 edition of the Recorder bashing the Second Amendment and gun owners.

It is an all too common tactic of the propagandist to omit language that weakens an argument or position ... In this particular anti-Second Amendementsubmission, the authors piece calls out well regulated, which applies to the body Militia and purposely omits the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In this example, an entire segment was omitted that partially predicated the recent decision (supporting Antonin Scalias prior ruling in Heller) of the SCOTUS The Militia is regulated, for its purpose, to ensure a secure and free state; the individual component, i.e., the people, are afforded the right: to keep and bear arms. This is enforced with: Shall not be infringed! It all seems to me, to be quite unambiguous. Apparently, though, this simple language is too complex for Massachusetts and for just fouror fiveother states and some of their residents to comprehend.

Gun ownership and driving licensure are yet more unfactual propagandist diatribe. Here in Massachusetts in order to acquire an unrestricted LTC, (license to carry) you must undergo/pass a criminal background check, and be photographed and fingerprinted to exercise a constitutional right! Anyone can get a drivers license, hassle-free! How many times a day on our roads have you encountered other drivers and wondered out loud, where the h---did you get your license? Training? Laws? Requisite skills and knowledge? Periodic re-testing? Pure fantasy!

Firearm ownership is a constitutional right, and driving is a privilege. It would be great if the two weretreated alike in terms of qualification and enforcement! Everyone would be safer. Gun owners arerequired to comply with rules/laws in everyinstance, mandated by state/federal law and, by strict codes of conduct imposed by responsible educated people on fellow gun owners within the community. Most any violation with a firearm and you will lose that right often for life, likely serve jail time, and be fined up the wazoo. Drive drunk/distracted/recklessly or run someone over ... Your privilege may be temporarily suspended, likely a small fine.

As a group, legal gun owners are some of the most law-abiding people in the country, according to a report by the Crime Prevention Research Center. In a study ordered by President Barack Obama and conducted by the CDC, the results of which, indicated legal guns may have prevented 300,000 to 2.7 million crimes. With the dangers of defunding/vilifying the police, weakening of our military, anti-Americanism, the increase in socialist ideology, and vilification of the Second Amendment supported by radical activists gun ownership has been increasing! according to the FBI background check system numbers (NICS). A study and report conducted by NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) and numerous other sources can be found online that suggest women and minorities are in part, responsible for these increases. Hmmm?

The human heart and mind are dangerous. A tool isnt dangerous until manipulated by a human hand. Anthropomorphizing guns or any inanimate object is just blatant foolishness.

David Powell lives in Northfield.

See the original post:
My Turn: Second Amendment propaganda and reality - The Recorder

A recently enacted Delaware law that bans guns described as assault weapons violates the U.S. and state Constitutions, according to a new lawsuit.

Delaware House Bill 450 bans the sale and manufacture of dozens of guns labeled as assault weapons. It also forbids transporting such guns into the state.

Those who violate the law face a felony charge for each violation.

However, the U.S. Constitutions Second Amendmentguarantees the right of the people to keep and bear Arms andArticle I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution states, A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use, which means that the new law is illegal, according to the suit, which was filed bythe Delaware State Sportsmens Association, a National Rifle Association (NRA) affiliate; several gun clubs; theDelaware Association of Federal Firearms Licensees; and five individuals.

Plaintiffs and their members have a constitutional right to make use of common firearms, deemed assault weapons under the Regulatory Scheme, for effective self-defense and not to be disarmed by the Regulatory Scheme and its enforcement by Defendants, the 92-page federal court filing reads.

In addition, state lawmakers ignored rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Delaware Supreme Court that peoples right to self-defense includes the right to possess guns both inside and outside their homes, the plaintiffs say.

The passage of the new law amounts to defiance of this established and unassailable authority, they say.

We promised our members and the people of Delaware that if HB 450 ever became law, we would challenge that law and today, we kept that promise, Jeff Hague, president of the Delaware State Sportsmens Association, said in a statement.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to block state officials from enforcing the law.

Delaware Gov. John Carney, a Democrat who signed the legislation, and theDelaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security declined to comment to The Epoch Times.

While signing the legislation and other gun restriction laws, Carney said previously that we have an obligation to do everything we can to prevent tragedies like weve seen around the county from happening here in Delaware.

We are not waiting to do whats rightto take steps that will make our state safer, he said.

Delaware Senate President Pro Tempore Dave Sokola, another Democrat, said hes proud of my colleagues for standing strong against the lobbying effort of the NRA to do whats right for the safety of our families.

Follow

Zachary Stieber covers U.S. and world news. He is based in Maryland.

Visit link:
New Delaware 'Assault Weapon' Ban Infringes on Second Amendment Rights: Lawsuit - The Epoch Times

A day after the U.S. House of Representatives backed a ban on high-powered weapons, Rep. Sean Casten said the fight against gun violence should focus on addressing the vast number of guns already in circulation and how the Second Amendment is interpreted.

The Downers Grove Democrat hosted a virtual town hall meeting Saturday with activist Fred Guttenberg, whose 14-year-old daughter, Jaime, was killed in the 2018 mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

About 180 people joined the virtual meeting, which lasted about an hour and had a Q&A.

"Ultimately, we have to judge ourselves as members of Congress ... as Americans by when our time is done here, is the world safer or more dangerous than when we got here?" Casten said after the town hall meeting. "As long as we're unhappy with that answer, we've got more work to do."

Casten did not express much hope that a ban on some semi-automatic guns would pass the Senate, where it could be held up by filibuster.

Guttenberg, who has attended the death penalty trial of the shooter who killed his daughter and 16 others at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, encouraged people interested in addressing gun violence to vote in the November election.

"This is the election of a lifetime," Guttenberg said. "America has the ability to reduce gun violence. We can seriously reduce this."

Casten said that while weapons bans, expanded background checks and other restrictions can help prevent gun violence, eventually the number of guns already in circulation, which he estimated was about 20 million, must be addressed.

"We have done the things that are popular," he said alluding to various restrictions. "We have to have a really hard conversation ... that says, what do you do about the fact that we already live in a country with 400 million guns? We have more guns than people in the United States."

Additionally, Casten said how the courts have interpreted the Second Amendment also must be addressed.

"We have to have a much more honest conversation about what our founders intended with the Second Amendment," he said. "The court system is the primary agent of a lot of death in this country."

Casten said he supports local efforts, such as Naperville's proposed ban on high-powered weapons and high-capacity magazines, and Illinois' strict gun laws. However, he said, those gun laws can do little if neighboring states have more lax laws.

See the original post here:
'Is the world safer or more dangerous': Rep. Sean Casten asks, saying there's more work to do on gun violence - Daily Herald

With control of Congress and 36 governorships up for grabs, the 2022 elections are shaping up to be transformational. In some states, voters will get their say on hugely consequential issues lower down the ballot, in direct-democracy initiatives on various hot-button issues, ranging from abortion to gun rights to labor and tax policy. And given recent news, were likely to see more such initiatives in coming elections.

The Supreme Courts Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v. Wade, has elevated the debate about abortion initiatives in five statesthe most in any year to this point. In two states, Kentucky and Kansas, voters will choose whether to amend their respective state constitutions to deny explicitly that any language in their founding documents implies a right to an abortion. The amendments respond to a series of state court rulings in places like California, Minnesota, Illinois, and New Jersey that resemble Roe v. Wade in holding that state constitutions guarantee abortion rights. After the Kansas supreme court issued one such ruling in April 2019, the Republican majority in the Kansas legislature tried to create an initiative for voters to amend the constitution in 2020 but could not muster the two-thirds vote needed to get the issue on the ballot after five Republicans voted against it. All five have subsequently left the legislature or been defeated in GOP primaries, and the legislature has since voted successfully to place the measure on the ballot in an election taking place in early August. The measure has received strong support from religious organizations, including the Catholic Church in Kansas, which has donated some $750,000 to the political campaign for it. Leading the opposition is the ACLU, which has so far contributed some $235,000 to defeating it.

In Kentucky, religious organizations want to add a clause to the constitution like the one proposed in Kansas, explicitly denying any right to abortion. Voters in four other states (Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Louisiana) have already passed such amendments. Conversely, Vermont voters will get their say on a Right to Personal Reproductive Autonomy Amendment, which would enshrine the right to abortion in that states constitution. The measure is being promoted by the states ACLU and Planned Parenthood chapters and opposed by religious groups and Vermonters for Good Government, which fears that the passage of the amendment might make taxpayers responsible for funding abortions, fertility treatments, gender-transformation surgeries, and other procedures related to reproduction. The California legislature, meantime, has placed an initiative on the ballot that would explicitly add language to its constitution guaranteeing a right to abortion. In Montana, voters will decide on a law declaring that infants born alive during an abortion procedure are persons and must receive medical care. Supporters placed the law on the ballot after the states Democratic governor, Steve Bullock, vetoed a similar measure in 2019.

Unionization is on the ballot in Illinois and Tennessee, albeit in different ways. In recent years, a wave of right-to-work legislation has swept the country. Four states bordering Illinois (Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Kentucky) have adopted laws giving workers the right to opt out of unions. Alarmed, union allies in the Illinois legislature have now placed on the states ballot a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to collective bargaining in both the private and public sectors. The proposed amendment not only gives workers the right to bargain but also explicitly states that Illinois may not pass laws restricting unions ability to negotiate over wages and benefits, as well as other terms and conditions of employment. While the amendment has gained the support of many unions in Illinois, the expansive nature of the language in the ballot initiative has sparked opposition from employer groups, including the Illinois Association of School Boards, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, and the Illinois Manufacturers Association.

Tennessee, meantime, was one of the first states to adopt right-to-work, shortly after Congress gave states that option in the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. Bolstered by research showing that right-to-work states have vastly outperformed required-unionization states on private-sector job growth over the last two decades, Tennessee now wants to join nine other states that have enshrined right-to-work protections in their constitutions. The state has been particularly effective at grabbing new manufacturing jobs and winning business relocations from unionization states like California in recent years.

The unexpectedly robust rebound in tax revenues after the Covid-induced economic lockdowns has left many states flush with cash. A ballot initiative in Colorado will give voters a chance to cut the states income-tax rate to 4.40 percent, from 4.55 percentan estimated $500 million reduction in revenue. This would be the states second voter-approved cut in two years: in 2020, Colorado residents approved a reduction from 4.63 percent to the current level, and Democratic governor Jared Polis backed the initiative. Are Colorado voters in the mood for more? Maybe. Polis recently said that the state should aim to eliminate its income tax and find better, less economically painful, ways to raise revenues.

Massachusetts Democrats want to take their state in a dramatically different direction. Local Democrats have approved a state ballot initiative that seeks to raise taxes by $2 billion. Voters will get to weigh in on the issue this November, amid increasingly good news on state finances. In April, Massachusetts collected $2 billion more in tax revenues from its residents than anticipated, and Republican governor Charlie Baker has been negotiating for tax cuts, even as Democrats ask voters for a whopping hike.

The right to bear arms is never out of the news for long. The Supreme Courts recent Bruen decision has kept a spotlight on gun rights, and citizens of several states will have their chance to vote on Second Amendment issues this fall. In November, Iowa citizens will vote on a constitutional amendment to keep and bear arms. Currently, 44 other states have similar reinforcements of the Second Amendment in their constitutions (California, New York, and Maryland are among the six that do not). One Iowa legislative supporter of the initiative said that the amendment is an attempt to set up obstacles for liberal judges who are willing to just take away your right to keep and bear arms. Democrats have opposed the amendment on grounds that it might make it harder to modify the states gun laws.

Given the long lead time necessary to place a referendum on the ballot in most states, this years initiatives are the result of momentum created before our current news cycles. But given timely policy debates over issues like abortion and gun rights, it seems likely that what voters in some states will decide over the next few months will set the stage for more direct-democracy campaigns.

Steven Malanga is the senior editor of City Journal and the George M. Yeager Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Read the rest here:
States Take the Initiative - City Journal

From today's article in the Washington Post (Peter Jamison) (reprinted, without a paywall, in the Philadelphia Tribune), documenting a trend that I generally very much favor:

Like many Black women in [the D.C. area] , [Patrice Parker had] viewed guns for most of her life as the root of the violence that had wrecked countless lives in her community.

That changed, paradoxically, after her son was shot to death in a parking lot not far from her home. Exasperated with the police response and in despair over the sheer number of weapons on the streets, Parker decided there was only one way to protect what remained of her family. And that was to pick up a gun herself.

"I always felt like you needed to take the guns off the street. But the way things are now . I don't feel safe anymore," she said. "You can't trust nobody."

Across America, Black women are taking up arms in unprecedented numbers. Scarredsometimes literallyby the firsthand consequences of gun violence and disenchanted with decades of urban gun-control policies that they regard as largely ineffective, some Black women in D.C. and other cities are embracing a view long espoused by Second Amendment activists: that only guns will make them safer.

As a child growing up in Southeast Washington during that era, Keeon Johnson learned to fear the weapons that routinely ended the lives of her neighbors.

"I wasn't into guns at all," Johnson said, "because we were told that guns were bad."

Decades later, serving as the Democratic chairwoman of an Advisory Neighborhood Commission in Ward 8, Johnson began to wonder whether her faith in her party's repeated promises of stricter gun control was misplaced. [Eventually, s]he and her husband, Frenchie Johnson, became NRA-certified instructors last year. Now they teach classes, catering specifically to Black people from D.C. and Prince George's, out of their home in White Plains, Md.

One of their first students was Janae Hammett, 37, who had gone to elementary school with Johnson in D.C. and whose children's father was shot to death in 2010. Given that history, Hammett said she was initially "on eggshells" around guns. But her comfort level increased the more she shot, and eventually she joined Johnson in forming the Second Amendment Sista Society, a club for Black women in the Washington region who are interested in guns.

Hammett said her transformation was driven, fundamentally, by desperation. Illegal guns, it seemed, were everywhere. If she couldn't count on anyone else to protect her, why shouldn't she legally own a gun to protect herself?

"I don't think the government, police or anybody will ever get a hold of the illegal guns," she said.

As a woman in a dangerous place, she had always feared she would be unable to defend her family. Her son's killers were still out there. But with a gun, Parker felt less vulnerable, especially with the knowledge she had gained at the Choppa Community [a local gun range].

"They took the fear out of me," she said.

Parker was waiting for the paperwork to come through on her concealed-carry license, and in the meantime she was trying to share her revelation with others.

The article cites two experts who argue that gun possession undermines safety rather than promoting it, but none who argues the contrary (and there certainly are prominent criminologists, such as Gary Kleck, who have indeed argued that gun possession generally tends to make the possessor safer). But in any case, I thought it was noteworthy that the article documented this thread, and took a generally positive tone on it.

Continue reading here:
"Black Women Who Once Hated Guns Are Embracing Them as Crime Soars" - Reason

Delegates at the United Auto Workers 38th Constitutional Convention in Detroit decisively voted down a proposed amendment banning the negotiation of hated multi-tier wage structures.

At the same time, the convention approved another motion, by a wide margin, to increase the salaries and pensions of UAW international officers by 3 percent.

With the working class facing an unprecedented crisis, delegates were subjected to an almost nonstop barrage of self-congratulatory happy talk. The complacency evident among the majority of delegates and union officials stands in sharp contrast to the sentiment in the plants, where anger over decades of UAW-imposed concessions is boiling over in the form of massive contract rejection votes.

Even as UAW President Ray Curry and other executives exchanged high fives at the convention, yet another UAW official was sentenced to jail for embezzling millions of dollars in workers dues. Timothy Edmunds, financial secretary of UAW Local 412, was sentenced to 57 months in prison Tuesday for embezzling $2.1 million in union funds. He pleaded guilty to the charges in March. The federal monitor overseeing the UAW had accused the UAW leadership of covering up its investigation of corruption in violation of a court order.

The same day, General Motors CEO Marry Barra implied that the automaker was preparing job cuts in the wake of a sharp fall in profits in the second quarter. According to the Wall Street Journal, GMs second quarter net income fell 40 percent from the previous year. Barra stated that the company is cutting discretionary spending and limiting hiring, and is prepared to tighten costs even further if economic conditions worsen.

Neither Curry nor Vice President Cindy Estrada, who presided over much of the proceedings Tuesday, took any note of this.

In a letter to delegates sent Tuesday afternoon, UAW presidential candidate William Lehman, a 34-year-old rank-and-file worker at Mack Trucks, noted that the layoffs at GM and previously announced cuts at Ford and Stellantis were only the beginning.

Loading Tweet ...

Workers know what [Barras statement] means: Massive job cuts and demands for further concessions, he wrote. And everyone knows that the UAW apparatus will agree to everything that the companies demand.

The keynote speaker at the convention Tuesday morning, Democratic Michigan Congressman Debbie Dingell, set the tone for the rest of the days speeches with a nationalist rant directed at China. Predictably, Dingell, herself a former GM executive, had nothing to say about the job cuts or the auto companies record-breaking profits in the midst of a pandemic that has killed scores of autoworkers and more than one million people throughout the US.

Spouting the nationalism long promoted by the unions, Dingell declared it was timeto bring back our supply chain back to America. She complained that 80-90 percent of medicines were produced in China, along with computer microchips and other critical components. I am not going to let China beat us at anything. America is going to lead the world, she said.

This takes place as Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi prepares a provocative visit to Taiwan, a move calculated to further ratchet up tensions with China and greatly increase the risk of war between nuclear powers.

Other featured speakers Tuesday included AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler and the Reverend Wendell Anthony, president of the Detroit branch of the NAACP. Outside of ritualistic paeans to the trade unions, both focused their remarks almost entirely on the need to get out the vote for the Democratic Party in the upcoming November elections.

However, amidst her feigned optimism, Shuler nervously acknowledged the breakdown in support for all the capitalist state institutions, including the Democratic Party. Dont think negative, dont give up, fight back! she exhorted.

The main conference business of the day was the debate and vote on resolutions and constitutional amendments. The group Unite All Workers for Democracy attempted and failed by wide margins to get several changes to the constitution adopted. One amendment called for UAW retirees to be permitted to run for International Executive Board positions in the first direct vote for top officers in the union. The second amendment would have banned the negotiation of multitiered wage structures in future contracts.

Bill Parker, former president of UAW Local 1700 at the Stellantis Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, introduced the motion on the amendment to ban tiered wages in negotiations. The resolution was largely pro forma, since it would do nothing to eliminate the hundreds of concessionary contracts already in place at virtually every UAW-represented workplace. However, even a verbal pledge to end tiers was too much for the UAW executives.

The resolution banning tiers had been among scores submitted to the UAW Constitution Committee, staffed entirely with appointees of the Curry leadership, but the committee had arbitrarily decided not to bring it to a vote.

While the supporters of the amendment won the right to bring the resolution to the floor by mustering support from 15 percent of the delegates, it was quickly clear that it would be easily voted down.

In the discussion, speakers for the administrative caucus argued that a ban on tiers would tie the hands of the union in negotiations. Estrada then tried to quickly end discussion and force a vote, a flagrant violation of the rules, as one delegate pointed out, since Parker had not even been allowed to speak in favor of his own resolution.

In his letter to delegates, Lehman wrote that the corruption scandal that has engulfed the UAW is merely one expression of the complete integration of the UAW apparatus into corporate management, the obliteration of all distinctions between the company and the union.

Lehman appealed to delegates to nominate him on Wednesday, stating that his campaign is aimed at developing a movement of the rank and file to end the dictatorship of the apparatus over the workers and create the conditions for a real fight of workers against exploitation and inequality.

Stay informed. Sign up to our Autoworker Newsletter.

More here:
UAW convention rejects amendment opposing tiered wage system, approves wage increase for top officials - WSWS

The Allahabad HC on Thursday ruled that, when an amendment application is filed at a very belated stage, it is required to be seen as to whether it has been filed with clean hands, bonafide intention or only with the intention to delay the proceedings and if the second one is found, no interference is required.

The bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari stated that petitioner himself has filed writ petitions for early disposal of suit and on the other hand, he has taken chance to linger on the proceeding by filing amendment application at a very belated stage.

In this case, the petitioner has filed an Original Suit along with an interim injunction application in the year 1993 for the cancellation of the sale deed, which was rejected. Against the said rejection order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an amendment application for amending the plaint. The said appeal as well as the amendment application was rejected. Again, both orders petitioner filed Writ Petition which was rejected.

Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, while rejecting the amendment application, it is required on the part of the Court below to see as to whether it is filed with ill intention or with clean hands.

Shobhit Saxena, Counsel for the respondent submitted that the intention of this Court was very much clear that the suit has to be decided at the earliest, but without any reason, after a delay of more than three years, the petitioner has filed an amendment application again.

The issue for consideration before the bench was:

Whether in light of Order VI Rule, 17 of CPC, up to what stage, amendment application may be allowed and what would be the consequences of delay in filing of amendment application?

Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP Group for Legal News Updates-Click to Join

High Court after relying upon the case of B K Mittal vs. Sakya Centre Society and others stated that the Apex Court has taken a consistent view that amendment application may be allowed at the second appellate stage, Court is required to take a liberal view and further amendment application would not be rejected on the ground of delay, in case delay is bonafide without any ill intention.

High Court opined that once the Court has granted liberty to file a second amendment application, there is no occasion for the petitioner to wait for three years when the suit was listed for final hearing. In fact, it is nothing but an attempt to linger on the proceeding by filing such an amendment application.

The bench stated that the petitioner himself has filed writ petitions for early disposal of suit and on the other hand, he has taken chance to linger on the proceeding by filing amendment application at a very belated stage. Therefore, while dealing with such a situation where an amendment application is filed at a very belated stage, it is required to be seen as to whether it has been filed with clean hands, bonafide intention or only with the intention to delay the proceedings and if the second one is found, no interference is required.

In view of the above, High Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Braj Bhushan Lal Awasthi v. Smt. Urmila (Since Deceased) And 11 Others

Bench: Justice Neeraj Tiwari

Citation: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 115 of 2022

Read the original here:
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC | Upto What Stage Amendment Application May be Allowed & What would be the Effect of delay? Explains Allahabad HC - Law...

My whole life Ive always believed that our freedom and our rights, as laid out in the Constitution, were absolute and unexpireable. Now as an adult in my early 30s, nothing has shocked me more than to discover the fragility of our rights and our freedom.

The famous Ronald Reagan quote rings exceptionally true today: Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didnt pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

We live in a time when people, unfamiliar with history, call to trade our rights in exchange for safety or a greater good. Benjamin Franklin warned of such perils by saying They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

We see this in the Covid-19 pandemic within our own state holding onto emergency powers up through present day for our safety emergency powers that move power away from our representatives, being the voice of the people, up to a singular governor which can act more autonomously.

This can also be evidenced in the ongoing Second Amendment debate where rights are being chiseled away under the guise that it will prevent ill-doers from committing heinous crimes. We didnt follow the science with covid and we dont follow that data with gun control. We dont follow these things because its not about solving these issues its about control.

Ive come to the realization that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution we were dealt a full deck and ever since then we have been giving cards away, each generation having less freedoms then their fathers.

I worry about what freedoms will be left when my children are grown. Did I let any go on my watch? It is each generations job to preserve these freedoms for the next. Weve gotten so far away from the Constitution and the spirit in which it was written that we now only know what truths are evident within our lifetime and neglect to look back at the history that these rights were derived from. Perhaps this is by design.

Were falling victim to a group our founding fathers were deeply concerned about referred to as a majority faction. In Federalist 10, James Madison expressed concern that a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

A minority faction was a lesser concern due to not having a majority to affect legislative change. The majority faction was of grave concern because at the expense of others rights they could affect legislative change. Thats where the Supreme Court comes in as a safeguard to the Constitutional rights of that minority group that was more or less trampled on by the majority.

It greatly concerns me that in present time this majority faction has taken aim at the Supreme Court which is the last defense in protecting our rights. Our government was designed as three separate branches to check and balance each other and ensure our rights were protected. To threaten an entire necessary branch to serve this passion or interest is a tremendous threat to our freedom.

I often ask myself what can be done to steer us back onto the course that our founders had planned out for us. I believe I have some solutions. We need a few terms of a truly limited government, a government as outlined in the Constitution. Our government was essentially designed as an insulator to our Bill of Rights, its sole job being protecting those rights. The government could legislate any laws it wished as long as those laws served to protect the citizens rights.

Commonly it is thought that main purpose of our government is defense and that is not outwardly true in that its a specifically enumerated right, but in so that it is necessary in our ability to protect our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The point is that we dont need to trade our rights for safety, but we need to bolster and strengthen them for our safety under the umbrella of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We can do this by electing representatives in government who truly represent our interests and by holding accountable those who dont.

We can bring American/Constitutional history back into education and shift the culture back to one that has a vested interest in preserving our rights. By learning from the past and actually understanding our rights we can wake people up to the importance of them.

We can eliminate woke social justice curriculum in our classrooms that teach division instead of unity curriculum which makes us fight with each other instead of working as a collective; curriculum that teaches and encourages abstract thinking instead of telling you what to think. These proposed actions will be gradual and take time, but we can still turn this ship around and save what we are so blessed to have.

America is the only place that this experiment of a constitutional republic could take place. It was a vast unclaimed land, the product of individuals escaping a tyrannical government. This scenario could not again take place in both physical space (because there is no more unclaimed land) or circumstance (a group of secessionists starting over in said unclaimed land).

Lets not ruin this incredible opportunity weve been afforded. Ronald Reagan: If we lose freedom here there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

Michael Rapetski lives in Cheshire.

Read the rest here:
Opinion: In CT and beyond, we must work to preserve freedoms - The Connecticut Mirror