How to declare war.

The power to declare war belongs to US Congress under the US Constitution. This is clearly stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

I added clause 12 because, as I keep pointing out, the issue of standing armies was important to the Constitutional framework. The founders made it clear that standing armies were the tools, and a sign, of tyranny. 

I'm going to cite once again this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. 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, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

This isn't to point out the Militia/Standing Army conflict, which was something the constitution bears out, but to point out that the use of military force requires the consent of congress: not unilateral action by a maniac (tyrant).

The law of the Declare War Clause is unsettled in part because there have been very few judicial decisions interpreting it. In the Prize Cases in 1863, the Supreme Court upheld as a defensive measure President Lincoln’s blockade of the southern states following their attack on Fort Sumter, but was ambiguous as to whether the authority for the blockade came from Article II, from specific statutes Congress had passed in 1795 and 1807, or some combination of both. And in dicta, the Court noted that the President could not begin hostilities without Congress’s approval. Earlier cases, such as Bas v. Tingy (1800), referred generally to Congress’s broad powers over warmaking without giving specific guidance on the President’s power. But in modern times, courts have generally avoided deciding war-initiation cases on the merits, based on rules that limit what types of disputes courts can resolve, such as standing or the political question doctrine. As a result, the precise contours and implications of the Declare War Clause remain unresolved today—leaving resolution of disputes over particular uses of force by the President to the political process. 

The president is allowed to use military force for imminent threats, but I would say that those threats need to be actual and directly upon the territory of the United States. Anything other than that would require Congressional approval.

I also disagree with the concept that any use of troops beyond the territory of the United States is not in violation of this since a "peacekeeping" force can find itself embroiled in a conflict. The founders were clear that one of the reasons they preferred militias to standing armies was that they were local defence forces. That is, they would not be used on "foreign adventures": especially those like the one pursued by Trump.

Trump gives fabulous examples of why this clause needs to be strictly interpreted with consideration  to  international law with his latest adventure being both unconstitutional and in violation of international war.

The United States and Israel were in negotiations with Iran, with Iran basically conceding to the demands when both Israel and the United States attacked Iran: which is a violation of international law. Toss in that it discredits both Israel and the United States, which is why they started this last conflict, but won't be the ones to end it. 

It is long past time that the US military serves as a defence force, not one that keeps the country in forever wars. 

War Plan for Operation Epic Failure

 If there ever was an argument for making criteria for the use of military force and ensuring that only congress can declare war:

There is no plan for how this mess will be carried out.

Police Brutality???

 

OK, I am doing an experiment on cultural attitudes toward policing. I'm hoping that a US audience will see this and give their opinion.

This was posted by the French @gendarmerie_nationale_officiel with the caption:
The trend gone wrong #humour #gendarmerie #gendarme

 

I've mentioned that I have seen British police beat the crap out of people who resisted arrest.

I am also aware of the cultural differences in policing.

I am curious as to how this would be received by a US audience.

Just curious about the common law position on "gun rights"

 So, I did another AI search. And even though I am against AI, I thought I would see what sort of response I received to the following query: "What is the British common law position on gun rights". Here are the results.

AI Overview

In British common law, there is no enshrined right to bear arms; rather, gun ownership is considered a strictly regulated privilege. The state controls access to firearms to protect public safety, requiring individuals to obtain licenses and demonstrate "good reason" for possession, such as sport, hunting, or occupational use. 

Key details:
No Right to Bear Arms: Unlike the U.S. Second Amendment, the UK has no legal right to bear arms.
Licensing and Control: The Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent acts strictly regulate, and often prohibit, the possession of firearms.
Requirements: A valid license is required from the local police, which involves a vetting process to ensure the applicant is fit and has a "good reason" for ownership.
Restrictions: Handguns have been generally illegal since 1997.
Self-Defense: Firearms are not considered a legal means of self-defense. 
The law focuses on public safety, making gun ownership highly conditional. 

what is the british common law position on gun rights

In British common law, gun ownership is currently viewed as a privilege, not a right. While a historic right to bear arms was once recognized, it has been effectively superseded by a series of parliamentary statutes, particularly since 1920. 

Historical Common Law Context
Historically, the common law position was rooted in both an obligation and a right for citizens to be armed: 
Mandatory Armament: Dating back to the 12th century (e.g., the Assize of Arms 1181), free Englishmen were required by law to maintain weapons suitable to their rank for the defense of the realm and local order.
English Bill of Rights (1689): This document codified the right of subjects who were Protestants to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". This was largely a response to attempts by King James II to disarm his opponents.
Blackstone’s Commentaries: In the 18th century, jurist William Blackstone described the right to have arms as a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" and a "public allowance" to prevent the suppression of other liberties. 

Shift from Right to Privilege
The transition from a common law right to the modern regulated system occurred through several key legislative milestones: 
Firearms Act 1920: This marked the definitive end of the "right" to bear arms by introducing a mandatory licensing system where applicants had to prove a "good reason" to own a firearm.
Removal of Self-Defense: While self-defense was initially considered a valid reason for ownership, the Home Office ceased recognizing it as such in 1937 (Great Britain only).
Modern Prohibitions: Following mass shootings in Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996), Parliament banned most semi-automatic rifles and nearly all handguns. 

Current Legal Status
Today, the "common law" has been almost entirely displaced by the Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent amendments: 
Licensing: All firearms must be licensed by the local police, who must be satisfied the applicant is not a danger to public safety and has a "good reason" (e.g., sport, hunting, or work).
Northern Ireland Exception: Northern Ireland remains the only part of the UK where "personal protection" may still be accepted as a legitimate reason for a firearm certificate under specific, verifiable risks. 
Would you like to explore the specific licensing requirements or the list of prohibited weapons under current UK law?

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more

My addition is this quote from Blackstone on the subject:

5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

And this is a link to a Parliamentary paper: 

FIREARM CONTROLS IN BRITAIN PART I THE HISTORY OF FIREARMS CONTROLS IN GREAT BRITAIN

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm
 

What The F*** Is Wrong With USS Gerald R. Ford?

 OK, this is something which is definitely verifiable.

 Trump's fiasco is harming the United States: and that's not Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

We know he's in a panic because his war has spun out of his control. 

The West isn't getting the truth about Operation Epic Failure

Sure, the BBC had a reputation of being trustworthy, but that is now long dead. I stopped watching post-Brexit and notice a pro-Western bias when I do pay attention to them.

Definitely, there is a bias in the western media to promote the war by failing to talk about it openly.

There is a question about US naval resources in the region. Iran claims that both the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald Ford are out of commission. There are rumours another carrier is being sent to the region.

And there is the rumoured 5,000 marines being deployed.

There was enough time to have stopped this since it's hard to hide sending a carrier group to a region, which would have been enough time for a war powers resolution to have been raised. But, no, that didn't happen.

This is a disaster for the United States.

It should never have elected a business person who has gone bankrupt 6 times if it wants the fantasy of running the nation like a business. His track record should have shown he would be a disaster for the country. 

 I'm not sure about the accuracy of the following video, but it makes a very serious allegation about the war effort if it is true.

 

The US Constitution give only Congress the power to declare war. This should only be the prerogative of the legislature, and not in the hands of the executive.

There is only one rogue state in the Middle East that destabilises the region and has nuclear weapons: Israel

Iran is a signatory of a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is responsible for monitoring compliance. Iran has faced scrutiny for its nuclear activities, with recent agreements for inspections being complicated by its restrictions on IAEA access to its facilities.

On the other hand, Israel is not a party to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. It is not subject of IAEA scrutiny. It is also supposed to actually have nuclear weapons.

What's wrong with this picture? 

 The US has just gone on another unjustified war for Israel: this needs to end.

The Glenn Amendment refers to an amendment to the Arms Export Control Act (Section 102). Under the Glenn Amendment, if the President determines that a non-nuclear weapon state [as defined by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)] detonates a nuclear explosive device, certain sanctions apply. The sanctions impose broad-ranging restrictions on various types of assistance, loans, and trade. The DOD Appropriations Act of 2000, signed into law on October 25, 1999, provides authority for the President to waive Glenn Amendment sanctions. 

This policy needs to end. 

Israel needs to be held to the same standard as Iran. 

War Made Easy - How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death

This is Richard Karl Breuer's teaser for the excellent documentary "War Made Easy"by the Media Education Foundation. It features a quote from Oregon Senator Wayne Morse from 1964 that:

The foreign policy belongs to the American people, not the President, who is the administrator of the will of the people. Therefore, the President shouldn't be allowed to wage war without the consent of the people.

 This is why the constitution needs to be amended to make it clear that the president is there to make sure that government runs according to the law made by the people. Or at least the people who are supposed to be representing the people: the legislature.

And only the legislature can declare war.

This current disaster was entered into without any cause or objective. 

It is a prime example of when the War Powers Resolution should be invoked.

This person gets it: why couldn't the US Legislature?

Even Margaret Thatcher held the Israelis accountable for violations of international law.

I  would like to share some excerpts from a letter written by Britain's former prime minister, Margaret Thatcher in condemning Israel's unprovoked attack  which destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor on 7 June 1981. The letter can be found here:
https://archive.margaretthatcher.org/doc02/8DC11F504FAA43199FE1288432BEBD3B.pdf

"I cannot accept that this attack was an essential pre-emptive act of self-defence by Israel. You argue first that Iraq has been in a state of war with Israel since 1948 and that Israel's action was not therefore a breach of international law. But the fact is that the Israeli action was clearly contrary to the prohibition in the UN Charter on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. Iraq has not engaged in active hostilities with Israel for some years. When there has been no armed conflict between the two countries for so long, an unprovoked attack of this kind has in our view no justification under international law. Your argument would logically justify an unprovoked Iraqi attack on an Israeli reactor which, as I said in the House of Commons, I would equally have condemned."

"You say that there is no doubt whatsoever that the Iraqi reactor would shortly have had the capacity to make atomic weapons. I can only point out again, as I did in the House of Commons, that Iraq is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, that the installations in question are subject to international safeguards, that they were regularly inspected (the last occasion being as recently as January) and no breaches of these safeguards were detected. We do not believe that Iraq had the capacity to manufacture fissile material for nuclear weapons, nor that she could have developed a capability for doing so without detection, as the French Government has made clear."

"I recognise of course that Israel has legitimate concerns about her security and that the Israeli Government faces very difficult decisions in ensuring the country's protection. I have made my views on this plain many times. Nor has Iraq so far played a constructive role in the Middle East peace process. There is no doubting her potential hostility to Israel."

"But none of this justifies the unprovoked use of force. The system of international law and international safeguards has been established precisely to avoid the situation which Israel feared and action such as Israel took on 7 June. If that system breaks down - and it will be at risk if flagrant violations of it are not forthrightly condemned - the security of all countries, not only Israel would be at risk. I am particularly concerned that the action taken against Iraq has further set back the chances of progress towards a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, which I believe is the only basis for Israel's security in the long term."

I want to point out that Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has faced scrutiny for its nuclear activities, which some countries believe violate the treaty's terms.

On the other hand, Israel IS NOT a signatory. US aid is supposed to be withheld to such a nation.

Mrs. Thatcher's positions on Israel and Palestine comes as a surprise, because she was not particularly a neocon, but instead a partisan of international law and fairness. She was a Zionist in the sense that she believed in the justice of establishing a Jewish state in the Mideast, but, and here the distinction is critical, with the provision that Palestinians receive meaningful self-determination or statehood as well. And her belief in the sanctity of international law was something she believed should apply to Israel as well.

I have to admit that I have a grudging admiration for Mrs. Thatcher even if I did not like her politics for the most part. 

The office of the US President needs to have its powers limited.

The US is in an illegal war for many different reasons. I'm not going to go into those reasons other than that only Congress can declare war.

But what is to stop a maniac who has power over the military to start a war? There are worse scenarios here as well.

The problem is that Trump has gotten the US into a war and it is hard to stop now that it's started.

The office of the executive should basically be the administration of the laws passed by the legislature. 

 

 

The only rogue state with WMD that destabilises the region is ISRAEL

 There are rumours that JFK was killed because he wanted to stop Israel from getting nuclear weapons.

Now it has the the Samson Option, Israel's alleged nuclear doctrine of last resort, which is where they will use nuclear weapons as a pre-emptive strike. 

 The US needs to stop supporting the state of Israel.

 

And this war could have been avoided.

The Constitution needs to be Amended: The Commander in Chief should not be the President.

 

If the founders should have learned anything from the English Civil War and Standing Armies issue, it should have been that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces should not be the King, President, or whatever you wish to call the executive. It should be separate and under the control of the legislature. It should not be able to act unilaterally unless then is an actual attack on the territory.

Under the constitution, only Congress can declare war. However, that power has been usurped innumerable times by the president. And the result is usually disastrous, as is the current case.

Toss in that the Executive should not use the military without authorisation from the people's representatives.

Article II, Section 2  which states:

    "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" 

 Should be amended to:

"The Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces, and of the  National Guards of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States, shall be nominated by the senior military staff with the appointment ratified by congress. This position is responsible to and reports solely to the Legislature, unless there is a declared national emergency."

The routine administration of the military should be delegated to a Defence Council, a body officially charged with the direction and command of the Armed Forces.

While the administration of the military should be military, the ultimate control would rest with the legislature.  

The power to declare war is vested in the legislature under the US Constitution: they should be the ones to have power over the military. 

 

 

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”

 The US Consrtitution is broken. To be honest having a written constitution is meaningless if no one understands what it means, or follows it.

I've pointed out that the US Constitution doesn't mention self-defence, but it does mention the common defence and shows great concern for the military establishment.

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

•     declare war
•     grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
•     raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
•     provide and maintain a Navy
•     make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
•     provide for calling forth the Militia
•     make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
•     provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
•     govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

•     Appoint the Officers of the Militia; and
•     train and equip the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II, Section 2 provides that:

    "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

The US engaged in acts of war without congressional approval during the Vietnam war, which led to the introduction of the War Powers Resolution which is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. 

The failure of getting congressional approval means this is an illegal war. 

The War Powers Resoultion provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".  

The attack on Iran shows that the commander in chief should not be the president of the United States.

One of the reasons I put this under Second Amendment was that part of the constitution was supposed to guarantee that institution would form the defence of the nation. As I have said before, the idea was to have a military where training and  administration would be handled by full time, professional soldiers, while the bulk of the forces would be part timers.

This system was what Switzerland had and is perfect for a peaceful and neutral nation since it discourages actions like those taken by Trump. As Jesse Ventura pointed out, make the people who make the decisions go to war. But under a militia, everyone is subject to military duty during a conflict, which should discourage belligerent actions.

And the founders were discussing the military when they discussed the Second Amendment, which is something which can be confirmed if you look up "founding fathers on standing armies". I keep mentioning the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 since provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. 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, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The founders would be appalled with the current state of the Union. 

 

(title comes from James Madison at the Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention 14 June 1788, Elliot 3:380--95, 400--402:

Mr. Madison. Mr. Chairman, I most cordially agree, with the honorable member last up, that a standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen. It is a great recommendation for this system, that it provides against this evil more than any other system known to us, and, particularly, more than the old system of confederation. The most effectual way to guard against a standing army, is to render it unnecessary. The most effectual way to render it unnecessary, is to give the general government full power to call forth the militia, and exert the whole natural strength of the Union, when necessary. Thus you will furnish the people with sure and certain protection, without recurring to this evil; and the certainty of this protection from the whole will be a strong inducement to individual exertion. Does the organization of the government warrant a belief that this power will be abused? Can we believe that a government of a federal nature, consisting of many coëqual sovereignties, and particularly having one branch chosen from the people, would drag the militia unnecessarily to an immense distance? This, sir, would be unworthy the most arbitrary despot. They have no temptation whatever to abuse this power; such abuse could only answer the purpose of exciting the universal indignation of the people, and drawing on themselves the general hatred and detestation of their country.

WIll Iran be Trump's downfall?

 Thus is the security brief from the BBC: Iran: What should the US fear?

Will Trump's ego lead to a strategic error? Why hasn't the Congress used the War Powers Act to stop this insanity? 

 This shows that the United States needs to seriously reorganise and reassess because it has forgotten some of the lessons of its history.

The United States of America: 1790-2026

An arrogant, self-obsessed, incompetent, land speculator was the first president of the United States. And another one will be its final president. This is because the lessons of la Conquête were not learned and the mistakes kept coming. This video shows that strategy is far more important in war than firepower. 

Watch these videos for an eye opener.  I think they are AI, but they may be from Chinese sources. That's a shocker if true.

 The US is not prepared to fight a war for many reasons, one of which was its support for Israel.

Trump's arrogance and inability to deal with reality are harming the US.

No Trump derangement syndrome here, just the observation of people outside the US.

That's part of the problem with a country that holds a "World's Series" in which it plays with itself. 

Yes, bad pun intended.

Seriously, I don't get my news from US sources. And foreign newspapers often have an English edition, which I am providing the headline from Le Monde in English so that people in the US can see how Trump is trashing the country on the world stage.

Even in the 51st (51st-54th states?), the United Kingdom, which is fairly US friendly, he's taking a lot of heat. And Canada is on the outs with its neighbour to the south.

People in the US should realise that a lot is wrong with their country and it needs a serious overhaul of its system. This is especially true for its system of elections which is supposed to keep a clown like Trump from becoming president.

 

The Tory response to the State of the Union Address.

272 years ago, in 1754, another real estate speculator with an overblown sense of ego started a world war at Jumonville Glen. The bill for that war was presented to the people of the 13 Colonies and they revolted. Despite their not being able to properly unify to fight that war under the Albany Plan of Union. 26 years later, in 1776, they thought they were able to rule themselves, and started yet another war which bankrupted the nation and threw it into havoc.

They hastily cobbled together a Constitution in the hope that they could unify, but less than 100 years later, the US had another civil war. And now it looks as if the US may end up in another civil war under the leadership of another real estate billionaire and reality television star with an overblown ego.  

The system is broken and only works for a few.

Trump's belief in the US being a world power may cause its downfall.

 What exactly is the state of readiness of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf?

The United States needs to address its internal problems rather than be the world's bully. One has to learn its real history, not the myth. Wars cost money and are disruptive.

Just curious about the issue of standing armies

 So, I did a search. And even though I am against AI, I thought I would see what sort of response I received to the following query: "standing armies in british political thought". Here are the results.

Standing armies have been a contentious issue in British political thought, particularly due to fears of military despotism and the need for civilian oversight. The 1689 Bill of Rights established that no standing army could be maintained without Parliament's consent, reflecting a long-standing opposition to permanent military forces in peacetime.

Going further produced the following

Overview of Standing Armies in British Political Thought
The concept of standing armies has been a significant topic in British political thought, particularly concerning their role in governance and civil liberties. Historically, there has been a strong resistance to maintaining a permanent military force during peacetime.

Historical Context
Pre-17th Century
Before the mid-17th century, England relied on local militias, noble levies, and mercenaries for defense.
The absence of a standing army was a common practice, reflecting a preference for citizen-based military forces.

The English Civil War
The creation of the New Model Army by Oliver Cromwell during the English Civil War marked a shift towards a professional military.
This army demonstrated effectiveness but also raised concerns about centralized military power.

Key Developments
The Restoration and the Bill of Rights
After the Restoration in 1660, fears of military despotism influenced political thought.
The 1689 Bill of Rights established that no standing army could exist without Parliament's consent, reinforcing civilian oversight.

Eighteenth Century Perspectives
Opposition to standing armies persisted, with figures like James Ralph arguing that they were unconstitutional and advocating for reliance on militias.
Adam Smith later noted that standing armies were indicative of a modernizing society, necessary for effective warfare. 

Conclusion
The debate over standing armies in British political thought reflects a tension between the need for military preparedness and the desire to protect civil liberties. This historical context continues to influence contemporary discussions about military power and governance.

Explore More
What are the Historical arguments against standing armies in British politics
Historical arguments against standing armies in British politics often centered on the fear of centralized military power leading to tyranny and the erosion of civil liberties. Critics, such as John Trenchard, argued that standing armies were inconsistent with free government and posed a threat to constitutional order, advocating instead for reliance on militias for national defense.

How did the 1689 Bill of Rights influence Military oversight in Britain

The 1689 Bill of Rights established that a standing army could not be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament, ensuring civilian oversight of military forces. This principle limited the monarch's power to control the military and reinforced the role of Parliament in military matters, shaping the modern British Army's reliance on parliamentary approval for its existence.

What are the Modern implications of standing armies on British civil liberties

Modern implications of standing armies on British civil liberties include concerns about government intrusion and the potential for military power to threaten individual freedoms. The historical distrust of standing armies has shaped contemporary views on the need for civilian oversight and the protection of personal privacy from military influence.

 My observation on this:

It's a nice summary, which is something AI can do pretty well. Although, it is sort of garbage in, garbage out depending on the material out there. I tried getting summaries on self-defence in common law and gun rights in common law, but those two topics are polluted with pro-gun propaganda, which can pretty much be discounted as inaccurate for a myriad of reasons. The basic one is that a good portion of the material is taken out of context. I don't have the time to cite check it all, but I have given examples in other posts. 

Probably the best example of how gun rights has misconstrued and misunderstands the primary sources is shown in the quote I gave from Heller in my last post.

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. 

Do I need to say any more to show how aberrant the concept of gun rights happens to be?

This is a really good article that shows the issue was standing armies if you will actually sit down and read the primary source material. Trust me, it doesn't take too long for it to become obvious unless you are incapable of understanding English:

https://allthingsliberty.com/2018/05/standing-armies-the-anti-federalists-and-federalists-constitutional-debate/

 

Scalia's fallacious reasoning

I could write a very long book to show that District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is nonsense, but that's superfluous since Scalia does it himself with this piece of gibberish which shows he has no idea of what he is talking about. In fact, I would say a statement this ignorant shows he was unqualified for the position he held: 

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. 

Unfortunately for Scalia, this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. 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, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

And like all the previous US supreme court decisions on the Second Amendment, it contradicts the Heller and subsequent decisions. Those two paragraphs show that the Heller decision is bumpf in an elegant manner. 

The issue of standing armies was a very hot topic in the 17th and 18th centuries, where as personal arms were not.

Fortunately, Donald Trump is proving another point I have been making about Heller, and that is that its invalidating of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), demonstrates that "judicial review" is unconstitutional and can pretty much be ignored.

I made a quip about Scalia writing a decision which permits the persecution of catholics. He didn't do that since he never lived long enough to write that decision. 

Hillary Clinton labelled ‘psychopath’ after ‘lying’ about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

Sure, Sky News Oz is totally off to the right, but it's always fun to watch. Rita Panahi may not be totally correct about lefties, as is the case with most of the rest of the talking heads. I mean Oz has a lot of the policies they criticise as being lefty, with really strong immigration control to boot. 

 Australia's tough on immigration, as is the case with the rest of the commonwealth, is something I agree with. It's dumb for people on the left to want to support open borders for a plethora of reasons. Unless they are doing it to highlight the idiocy of US imperialist, warlike policies, but that action is really lost in translation.

Revenons à nos moutons!

I've made it clear that I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton even if ranked Choice was an option. She would definitely come in behind my write in votes for my dogs and Bozo the clown if there were still choices.

But this video shows that Hillary is up there with 'Orrible 'Arris for bad candidates fielded by an awful party.

No Russians involved! Unless Russians run the DNC.

 

And about that photo of Ghislaine Maxwell at Chelsea's wedding: It's easily searchable at Getty Images. There are at least three copies: https://media.gettyimages.com/id/103183991/photo/chelsea-clinton-marries-marc-mezvinsky-in-rhinebeck-new-york.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=hwRpJ3P-iRaanxtDIQ_yWaQL3LNMJoz-ddvP7bP1ans=

The Real History of the Second Amendment: Debunking the Individual Right Hoax

 OK, I pretty much agree with him, but he neglects the complaints in the Declaration of Independence were:

• 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.

This gets into the real history of the mindset behind the Second Amendment which is the conflict between a professional, full time standing army and a part time force (the militia). The Federal government had an army, and the states had their militias.

This precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 for a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. 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, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 That's pretty much the Second Amendment's significance is a nutshell. But this video gives a better idea of how the topic plays out in proper Anglo-American/Common law jurisprudence. 

The US NEEDS to become a true multiparty democracy.

This comes from a quote from Brent McKenzie's When Separation of Powers becomes a Suggestion in Fulcrum, where he says:

The Framers assumed ambition would counteract ambition. What they did not anticipate was a political culture in which party loyalty would eclipse national loyalty.

Not true since the Founders understood that political factions, which we now call parties, could pose challenges to the system and had significant debates about them. Some saw them as a natural outcome of a free society. George Washington warned against the dangers of political factions in his farewell address, emphasizing their potential to disrupt national unity.  The contentious election of 1800 with its rivalry between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans proved him correct.

James Madison emphasized the need for a system that controls the influence of factions on governance  in Federalist No. 10. Madison believed that a large republic would help control the influence of factions, as diverse interests would make it difficult for any single group to dominate. Unfortunately, he didn't see the problem with the current duopoly system which allows for control of the political sphere by a small group.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention political factions, despite the founders dislike for them. It was thought that the effects would be controlled through the system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, as we are seeing, those checks and balances are ineffective and quickly eroding until we will see a constitutional show down similar to the English Civil War, where the legislature takes on the Executive branch. Unfortunately, this is something which the US Constitution does not truly address with its system for amending the constitution.

The issues of factionalism, demagoguery, and the balance of power that concerned the founders still plague us today. I would say they are as bad if not worse now than they were at the beginning of this experiment. 

The "Westminster"/Parliamentary system requires that any failure to pass a budget results in new elections. Of Course, it's "Westminster" since Belgium holds the record for the longest time without a government in peacetime, lasting 589 days from April 2010 to December 2011. This period began when Prime Minister Yves Leterme resigned, and no new parliamentary majority could be established despite extensive negotiations. And, as of February 2026, Brussels is experiencing another political stalemate, having gone 542 days without an elected government. This ongoing crisis reflects the challenges of forming a coalition in a bilingual political landscape, where parties often struggle to find common ground.

Yet another reason I'm glad I didn't apply for Belgian citizenship when I was living there, despite speaking all four languages and feeling an affinity for the place. I mean, the beer is the best.

Anyway, Belgium's political deadlock highlights the importance of strong federalism and regional autonomy, allowing local governments to maintain essential services even without a central government. Additionally, it demonstrates the need for political compromise and the potential risks of deep divisions within a nation, which can prolong governance challenges. 

While running a government like a business is generally a bad idea. Competition in this sphere to prevent monopolisation as well as cooperation between similar factions is helpful in preventing the ownership of the government by powerful factions. It's long past time the people took control of their government.

I can't say "took back control" since the system has never been one where the people are properly represented in the legislature. This has never, and will never, happen under the current system.

Sunday laws in a secular society

There's a reason that the US is a secular nation. And it happened because the religious people who founded this country knew the mischief that comes from having an established church.

That's because most of them came from, or were descended from people who were escaping state interference in religion. And that's pretty much the case for a good portion of my ancestors on my mother's father side who had been in North America before it was the United States.

It's also made clear in this video since there is no consensus as to WHEN the sabbath occurs. So, while a day of rest is found in Islam (Friday) and Judaism ("Saturday". Well, Friday sundown to Saturday sundown): It's not that cut and dried in Christianity. Most sects observe that day on Sunday, but not all of them do.

 I'm not sure whose Heritage the Heritage Foundation seeks to recreate, but it is in no way mine.

The US was founded as a secular nation, and that is in the Constitution. The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits Congress from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. It is often interpreted as requiring a separation of church and state, ensuring that the government does not interfere with religious practices or promote any particular faith.

The people who created the United States knew that intention very well and misguided people who don't understand the constitution should avoid messing with it. 

Besides, these laws once existed, but they were repealed.

The British Judge's black sentencing cap (AKA Black cap)

I thought I did a post on my own blog about this, but this odd, little relic of court dress still exists in judicial garb: despite the abolishment of the death penalty. According the the UK Courts and Tribunal Judiciary's website:

 The black cap
The black cap – based on court headgear in Tudor times – was traditionally put on by judges passing sentence of death.
Since the permanent abolition of capital punishment in 1969, there has been no need for the cap to be worn. High Court Judges still carry the black cap, but only on an occasion where they are wearing full ceremonial dress.

 And Scott Turow writes in On Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer’s Reflection on Dealing with the Death Penalty:

A friend of mine has just been made a High Court judge. Among the majestic paraphernalia that he has had to acquire—the scarlet robes, the wigs full-bottomed and otherwise, the pressed white gloves, the satin gaiters, the silver buckles and so forth—is a square of black silk, the Black Cap, that the court usher places on top of his wig before he pronounces the death penalty: or rather, would have had to place on top of his wig had the death penalty not been abolished in England thirty-eight years ago. 

Which is a good place to  move into WHY I am writing this.

They aren't flat pieces of cloth as the image to the above left demonstrates. Although, they do look like flat pieces of cloth when put on an actual head. In reality, they are more like floppy mortar boards (square academic caps), which this picture taken on a larger head on the right demonstrates better.

But they are flat with a hole in it. There are pictures of a couple of them at the Old Court House Law Museum, but I am going to post the one I have below since it shows the hole a bit better.
https://ehive.com/collections/204776/objects/2234527/death-cap-black

https://ehive.com/collections/204776/objects/2234734/death-cap-black 

You can sort of get an idea of what they look like in that one since you can make out the bottom triangle in the pictures (the Old Court House's and mine).  It's the little flaps hanging off to the side.

Sentencing caps are made from three pieces of cloth.

1. one flat square for the top
2.  a flat square with a hole in it for the middle
3. and a triangle with an indentation for the half hole in it for the bottom

you get  a better idea if you look at the bottom picture, since it's hard to see what they look like since they are black.

Also, when it's put on a full size human head the little flaps, which are what is called the skull on an academic cap, aren't as visible. The triangle bottom is like taking the skull, but leaving it open and flexible so it can flop around. You can see them in some of the pictures of a real cap.

Does that make sense, or do the pictures help?

Anyway, I'm getting annoyed with people saying it's a flat piece of cloth. Anyone who says that has never actually seen one in real life.

Although, these things are relics from when there was capital punishment, yet they are still part of a British Judge's full regalia. So, I'm surprised there isn't more knowledge about these things. I don't want what little is out there to be tainted by inaccuracy.

I'm also surprised that they are hard to find. I haven't put much effort into inquiring with Ede & Ravenscroft. On the other hand, Judicial wear is, according to the website (
https://shop.edeandravenscroft.com/pages/legal-specialist-contact):

These garments are hand cut and made to order in our bespoke workrooms.

Please contact us to discuss your requirements.

I guess the death penalty is not genteel enough to be discussed.

So, you will have to make an inquiry to Ede & Ravenscroft if you want one from them.

But someone should be able to crank these out on something like an Etsy for those of us ghoulish to want an authentic one.

I'm hoping this helps those people.

And this gets to a great time to put in a plug for my favourite pub owner and hangman, Albert Pierrepoint. He ran a pub in Lancashire from the mid-1940s until the 1960s. 

On the other hand, he was one of the last official hangman in Britain. who executed between 435 and 600 people in a 25-year career that ended in 1956. His father Henry and uncle Thomas were official hangmen before him. 

There's a great film about him called Pierrepoint: The Last Hangman, or just The Last Hangman. But that's not really accurate since after Pierrepoint's resignation, two assistant executioners were promoted to lead executioner: Jock Stewart and Harry Allen. Over the next seven years they carried out the remaining thirty-four executions in the UK. On 13 August 1964 Allen hanged Gwynne Evans at Strangeways Prison in Manchester for the murder of John Alan West; at the same time, Stewart hanged Evans's accomplice, Peter Allen, at Walton Gaol in Liverpool. They were the last hangings in English legal history. The following year the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 was passed, which imposed a five-year moratorium on executions. The temporary ban was made permanent on 18 December 1969.

So, nothing like a bit of trivia about the death penalty 

Now, will someone correct this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cap

Stop Israeli destruction of Christian Holy sites!

 I've been posting about this for a while. Israel persecutes Christians, yet the Christian Zionist community doesn't stand by their fellow Christians. 

I mean if shooting Christians who are praying or seeking shelter in a church in Gaza doesn't get you going, you need to reassess what you say you believe in.

That said it's time Christians challenge Israel’s colonial actions and takeover of Sebastia’s archaeological site; which is home to a 4th-century church built over the traditional place where John the Baptist was beheaded.

 

Anyway, look up my posts on how Israel persecutes Christians.

But I think most atheists are better Christians than a lot of people who claim to be Christian.

Crypto is a scam.

Nothing I haven't said before. Just don't pay attention to people selling "get rich schemes" (e.g., crypto, gold, etc.).

 

Libertarianism: Live Free...OR DIE!!!

Anyone familiar with me knows I have a low opinion of libertarianism. Like its leftwing twin, anarchism, it is a utoppian idea which falls apart quickly. The big difference between the two is that libertarianism wants to get rid of regulation and let the oligarch foxes run the chicken coop.

That said, this shows how the utopian ideal doesn't work.

The best part is that they defunded the police with the obvious consequences.

 

Amelia isn't going to cut it in the US. She supports ICE.

 I am going to change my previous post where I said " I think she would be more of an ICE supporter."

 No think about it: she DEFINITELY supports ICE.

She's not a symbol of resistance, she's a racist authoritiarian.

The Joke's over. If they think that the British police are authoritarian, then they are truly deluded with this bullshit.

 No think about it. She's the greaseman cheerleader for ICE.

Not sure what to think about Amelia.

Although, when George describes a television presenter as "That posh bird that gets everything wrong" in Hard Day's Night seems appropriate.

For those who have been lucky enough to have missed this trend, Amelia is a character from the educational game "Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism". The game was designed for the British government to help young people recognize and avoid online radicalization. However, she has become a viral meme, often associated with far-right ideologies, which has shifted the game's original intent. Amelia parrots right-wing, often racist, talking points, connecting her celebration of stereotypical British culture with anti-migrant and Islamophobic tropes. Her England is that of an American who has never visited the place.

For example, she likes eating fish and chip in a pub, which is wrong on several levels. Traditionally, Fish and Chips came from the chip shop, or "chippie".  And pubs didn't sell food back then. Well, at least not like the ones like Wetherspoons does now. Even more importantly, Pubs are quickly vanishing for economic reasons:

The UK is experiencing a significant decline in the number of pubs, with projections indicating that one pub is set to close every day in 2025 due to rising operational costs and reduced consumer spending. This trend has resulted in thousands of job losses and highlights the urgent need for government intervention to support the struggling pub industry. 

  

Next comes her accent, which is rather posh since she is supposed to be from Yorkshire (Pathways mentions East Riding amd Bradford). Something like Jodie Whittaker's accent n the clip below would be far more appropriate. I can't imagine someone talking like Amelia and lasting long up there. Amelia belongs in Downton Abbey, not Yorkshire. And Highclere Castle, which poses as Downton Abbey, is in Hampshire, which is in the South of England.

But there are so many things wrong with the Amelia memes it's hard to get upset about, such as her in this D-Day landing craft full of Americans. Or are they Danes?  Since I see a Danish flag in the background. Toss in another vid has a giant Danish flag in it!

Someone mentioned something about her and Minnesota, but I can't see Amelia shedding tears for people who are fighting people deporting furriners. She is definitely more of an ICE supporter than opponent.

I believe the memes have her fawning over Nigel Farage. So, she's a definite loser, unless she secretly hopes for England to become the 51st State: after Wales and Scotland devolve and join the EU.

Well, as another line from the scene I mentioned from Hard Day's Night goes: "The new thing is to care passionately and be right wing."

And she does like dogs: although for seriously silly reasons.

A message from the Mayor of Bethlehem about Christians in Palestine

 There's a reason those 1,000 "Christian Influencers" didn't visit Bethlehem. That trip was such propaganda that it's not worth thinking about.

What's worth thinking about is how they can let other Christians be persecuted.

 

Don't forget Palestinian Christians

 And this comes from the Instagram page forgotten_christians:

Palestinian Christians living under Israeli occupation face daily hardships: movement restrictions, checkpoints and permit systems that limit access to work, schools, hospitals, and holy sites, alongside land confiscation and settlement expansion that squeeze livelihoods and community life. 

In Christian villages like Taybeh, residents have faced repeated Israeli settler attacks and intimidation targeting homes, farmland, and church property, creating fear and insecurity with little accountability.

For some reason, Christian Zionists neglect Palestinian Christians and their persecution by the State of Israel. Unless it blows up in their faces the way it did for Mike Huckabee, but even he turns a blind eye to the persecution of Christians and the destruction of churches.

 

The real problem here is that the Palestinian Christians are the "wrong sort of Christians" to get support from Evangelicals who support lsrael. we need to bring back the 1975 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379.

 

The real history of the Second Amendment.

Let's start this with this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 for a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. 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, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

I've gone on ad nauseum about how the current interpretation is an ultra vires act that has no historical basis. After all the complaints in the Declaration of Independence were:

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.

This gets into the real history of the mindset behind the Second Amendment which is the conflict between a professional, full time standing army and a part time force (the militia).

And you can show me where the US Constitution explicitly mentions "self-defence", or any other non-military use of arms if you think I am wrong.

There is far more evidence that my interpretation is the correct one:

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown. --Elbridge Gerry, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, 20 Aug. 1789, Annals 1:749--52, 766--67  

See also:

• Schwoerer, Lois G. “No Standing Armies!” The Antiarmy Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England, ISBN: 978-0801815638

Can one peacefully protest while armed?

Something that is annoying me is watching British commentators condemn ICE for shooting Alex Pretti.

My usual question to them is "what would be the reaction of British police if someone showed up at a protest with  a holstered handgun?"

And unlike a lot of people out there: this blog has been pretty consistent about carrying weapons to a protest as being a no-no. 

I'm sorry I can't say too much if Alex Pretti was going to show up with a firearm and get in the way of police. My experience is that is an incredibly bad idea from my long career of dealing with the police in various capacities.

But, as the quote from My Cousin Vinnie goes: "It's your ass not mine."

I know that some jurisdictions make it illegal to carry a weapon during a civil unrest (e.g., 18 Pa.C.S. 6107), which is why I said that I am surprised the real militia (national guard) didn't shoot Kyle Rittenhouse for walking about armed in Kenosha.

I had a manual on protesting from the 1960s which made it clear not to bring weapons to a protest, that I can't find. And there are states which prohibit this activity.

As does common sense.

To quote the Everytown page where I got the graphic:

White supremacists and anti-government extremists have sought to undermine our institutions with armed protests that too often escalate to violence. An 18-month study of 560 events where demonstrators, counter-demonstrators, or other individuals or groups were present and carried or brandished firearms found that at least 18% of these events occurred on the grounds of government facilities, with more than 100 reported at legislative buildings and vote-counting centers. The study also found that armed demonstrations are nearly six times as likely to turn violent or destructive compared to unarmed demonstrations. 

That comes from Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) and Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Armed Assembly: Guns, Demonstrations, and Political Violence in America,” August 23, 2021.

The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law pretty much agrees with this:

The right to peacefully assemble is enshrined in the First Amendment and has driven political progress in the United States since its founding. While the overwhelming majority of recent protests in the U.S. have been peaceful and have not involved weapons, a growing number have included individuals with firearms—whether participating as protesters, counter-protesting, or claiming to provide security.

Armed individuals undermine protests’ core democratic nature: They intimidate and discourage people from exercising their rights to speech and assembly, and they have interfered with basic democratic processes like voting and lawmaking. Amidst unprecedented political polarization and heightened fears of political violence, the presence of firearms at protests today threatens to be a particularly combustible trend. 

I could quote extensively from that report on how stupid Pretti was for being armed and how counterproductive it was, but he learned that lesson at the cost of his life. It's worth reading. https://www.icnl.org/wp-content/uploads/Guns-at-Protests-Briefer-vf-02.2022.pdf

So, you may not like what I say about Alex Pretti getting shot, but someone needs to toss some cold water on the practise of carrying weapons, particularly firearms, to protests. Pretti was "too soon oldt and too late smart" when it comes to this. And, like Rittenhouse, his heart was in the right place, but his head was up his ass.

Unfortunately, Pretti DID get killed for his ignorance.

See also:

• Protests might be one place you can't carry guns. Slate Magazine

Smile, you're on camera: Facial recognition becomes widespread in London...

I tried to write a post about the differences in US and Europan Union privacy laws which somehow got trashed, but the gist of it is that the US doesn't have strong data protection laws. That means law enforcement is working with the crap data mining services provide.

On the other hand, digital ID these days is biometric and works well with facial recognition.

And immigration services worldwide are using biometrics for law enforcement. 

I would also add in that immigration is tightening up worldwide. So, it feels hypocritical that people outside the US are condemning ICE. Especially since the Schengen Area in Europe fines people 1,000€ a day for overstaying. There is also a possibility of being banned from the Schengen zone.

 

Fortunately, people in the US are too distracted with ICE to notice that they are handing the data miners information. That was an important part of the lost post, a reference to this article: How is ICE tracking people in Minnesota? An expert explains.

It might make more sense to demand strong data protection laws which allow people to control what is private information being sold. Especially since your private information is one of the things making money for big tech.

And helping ICE do its job.

Sheriff warns bystanders...

OK, I've made it clear that you're taking your chances if you bring a weapon of any kind to any form of protest. Something I said in another post on police violence (Defund the Police is Utopian, Misinformed, and Misguided):

OK, the "Gun Violence Prevention" types should be upset about the guns on the street, but they are getting way ahead of where they should be in this process: especially if they are serious about cutting back on how many people patrol the streets. Getting the guns off the streets should be priority number one for the people who are going to float this crazy concept. Not to mention they should be really careful about how they frame the issue in regard to people who carry guns. Guns are not the problem in Europe and most of the rest of the world that they are in the US. 

Acquiring guns illegally in the US is not much harder. About 57% of this year’s deadly force victims to date were allegedly armed with actual, toy or replica guns. American police are primed to expect guns. The specter of gun violence may make them prone to misidentifying or magnifying threats like cellphones and screwdrivers. It may make American policing more dangerous and combat-oriented. It also fosters police cultures that emphasize bravery and aggression.

While people might want to say that Alex Pretti wasn't armed, as that quote points out you're taking your chances having anything in your hands in an encounter with the police.  

But, I'm going to let this sheriff explain this to you and maybe you might not do something stupid which gets you killed.

 

As I said in the other post:

I witnessed the police beating someone resisting arrest. It was about 4-6 police officers on one small, skinny person.

Was it a bunch of white racist cops in the US?

Nope, it was someone who refused to leave a bar on Gandy Street in Exeter, England in 1991. The person who was being beaten was white, as were the police. The issue was that the person was resisting arrest.

Getting in the way of police doing their jobs is taking a serious risk: whether you agree with what they are doing or not.