You say you want a revolution????

I often note that the Declaration of Independence is a historic document, not a legal one, under the US Constitutional Framework. Per the US Constitution itself:

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, mentions of inalienable rights, all men being created equal, and so forth really don't carry much legal weight.

That's because the Declaration of Independence was written as a justification for why the US should be independent from Britain. And in light of current events, it's full of bullshit.

Take, for example, these two complaints:

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

One of the main complaints of the people drafting this document was that the unelected, government in Britain was abrogating laws made by the colonial legislatures.

Or more concisely, unelected officials were taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws,

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

In short, the unelected officials wearing robes were destroying popularly enacted laws.

The gets to the topic of judicial deference, which also means that judges are umpires, not legislators.

There are reasons of public safety and good public policy WHY some laws should be on the books.

Also, there is the rule of law, which seems to have disappeared under the "conservative" atmosphere in the US.

On the other hand, the US was founded on the concept that unelected officials shouldn't be messing with laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

On the other hand, the tories pointed out that they would rather be ruled by one tyrant a thousand miles away than a thousand tyrants a mile away.

Oh, and since I mention the Second Amendment, these were complaints made by the colonists:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

Nothing about private arms.

What don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed?"

 What don't you get about taking shit out of context?????????

Seriously! If you are only going to look at a part of the Second Amendment, then why not just use the bit about domestic violence to make it a federal issue?

The Second Amendment was obsolete before the ink was dry on the Constitution,which if you clowns would know if you would actually do some serious research and look into the issue instead of taking shit out of context. Gun fetishists like to quote George Mason, Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, who said:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.

Now, if you read the entire statement from the transcript you see:

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of people.... Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty."  3 Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 425-426. (J. Elliot ed., 1836).

Actually, people were getting out of serving in the militia during the War for Independence and it was a burden for the average person to have to serve. Look up the Morristown Rebellion by the Pennsylvania Line.

Anyway, Mason had a drastically different view of what exactly the Second Amendment was supposed to do and it wasn't to make sure that any dickhead who wanted to could walk down the street carrying a concealed weapon (BTW, carrying concealed weapons was considered something done by criminals, not respectable people in them days). Here is his proposal for the "right" from the above convention:

That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the Military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

So, do me a favour, and unless you are actively suggesting a drastic reorganisation of the US military to be what Switzerland once had, please don't say you support the Second Amendment. Or as Joseph Story pointed out:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. ( Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833. Section 1890)

The Second Amendment fell victim to desuetude long ago.

OK, Feminists, now's your time!!!

 The word of the day is once again desuetude:

In law, desuetude is a doctrine that causes statutes, similar legislation, or legal principles to lapse and become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time. It is what happens to laws that are not repealed when they become obsolete.

And it’s time the Supreme Court owned up that the Second Amendment has fallen victim to desuetude. It would be a truly conservative act to make that admission.  Here is Judge Robert Bork (The Tempting of America (1990)) on this issue:

“There is a problem with laws (which are not enforced). They are kept in the code books as precatory statements, affirmations of moral principle. It is quite arguable that this is an improper use of law, most particularly of criminal law, that statutes should not be on the books if no one intends to enforce them. It has been suggested that if anyone tried to enforce a law that had moldered in disuse for many years, the statute should be declared void by reason of desuetude or that the defendant should go free because the law had not provided fair warning.”

The Second Amendment relates to a framework of national defence which died out probably before the ink was dry on the Constitution, which is something I've gone into ad nauseum.

 But if the game of the day is to take obsolete sections of the US Constitution, I say let's take the domestic violence clause out and let it run havoc! Full text of Article IV, Section 4:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

Scalia demonstrated ignorance of the law when he said:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Actually, you dumbfuck, that is precisely what you should have done if you didn't want to make the US system of justice into a blatant joke (it already was a joke).

On the other hand, there are loads of domestic violence victims who could benefit by the reinterpretation of the Domestic violence clause.

And it's not even an amendment!

Let havoc reign in the halls of "justice"!