Wednesday, June 25, 2014


It appears that too many judges (Especially those in SCOTUS) are like editorial writers, they do not seem bound by facts in inflicting their opinions on others.

As to guns and SCOTUS (And, other courts-of-appeal) I cannot but wonder if:
  1. The facts of the views of the Founders as to arms-and-citizens have ever been
    directly addressed to them in cases as pertain to the Second Amendment;
  2. If the meaning, to those patriots, of the term “shall not be infringed” has likewise been put before them in such cases;
  3. The recent historical evidence that those who won our nation's freedom did use “blunderbusses” (ie The short barreled shotguns of that era), making such military weapons as should be available to the common, law abiding, citizen; And,
  4. In more recent years, has some presentation been made of the scientific evidence  that an armed citizenry is both useful in suppressing crime and in reducing injuries or great-bodily-harm to them by criminal attacks?

Monday, June 23, 2014

Questons For Judicial Nominees

With the recent announcement of two  SCOTUS decisions this week directly impacting on The Bill Of Rights I again must strongly demand that the US Senators, holding “confirmation hearings” for nominees (Without regard to Party affiliations) to all  Federal judicial positions ask those persons the following questions.
1. “Do you agree or disagree with President Thomas Jefferson’s position on the interpretation of the Constitution being: 'On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.' . In either case, why?”
2. “Do you agree or disagree with the position that the intent of the authors of the First Amendment to the Constitution was to keep only the new national government from establishing a national church as was the case in England and most of the world?”
3. “Are you aware that the draft  of Thomas Jefferson's famous 'Separation Letter' confirmed that intent?"
4. “Are you aware that some of the original States kept, without constitutional challenges, official churches into the 1820s?”
Are you aware that Justice Hugo Black, the author of the currently followed ruling on 'church and state', was a member of the KKK and a particular hater of the oldest of the Christian Churches?”
6. “With regard to the Second Amendment to the
Constitution, what is your view of the meaning of its 'shall not be infringed' clause?”
 7. “Is your view consistent with the meaning as understood by the authors of that provision as illustrated by such quotes as: (By President Jefferson) "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms", "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government
"; (From President Washington) "The very atmosphere of firearms any where and every where restrains evil interference---They deserve a place of honor with all that is good", "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance, they are the peoples' liberty teeth";"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.";   "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."; (From revolutionary Samuel Adams) "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."; (George Mason)“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials”; (Tench Coxe; Member of The Continental Congress and, later, constitutional scholar and author)Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.” ; “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms:. [Emphasis added as to some items above.]
8. "Have there been, in the last 20-years, US Judges who were tyrants and remained 'on the bench'?"
9.  "Article-II, Section-4 of the Constitution provides for the removal of Federal officers. It does not require a two-thirds vote of the Senate to obtain a conviction. With the 2013 changes in the Senate Rules, is it your view that there is/is-not a constitutional bar to conviction upon a simple majority of the Senate?"

The same questions might well be asked of any future nominees for the position of Attorney General, Solicitor General and their assistants/deputies as require Senate confirmation---Without regard to Party!

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Due Process In Adminstrative Hearings

Although I am not a lawyer, I have executed duties as a hearing examiner for Wisconsin's Department of Corrections and have done much reading in applicable law articles and books. It appears that constitutional due process requires the following.
1. Prior notice of the "charges" (Alleged violations") and the laws/rules/regulations alleged to have been violated (Which must be in such clear language as is understandable by the accused).
2.  Advance provision to the accused of the evidence (Including the names of adverse witnesses, documents, other physical evidence) to be used against that person; Such advance to be long enough to allow investigation of such evidence including those matters which might  impugn the credibility of witnesses. 
3.   A hearing before an independent and impartial hearing examiner or like tribunal.
4. Provision of legal counsel in such cases where such penalties as money-assessments/termination of employment/school-enrollment/jail may be imposed.
5.  The ability to effectively cross-examine witnesses and, if necessary, "impeach" them.
6.  A written statement as to the findings of that (Those) examiner(s) as to both conclusions and the evidence relied upon in making such conclusions.
7. A right to a timely and fair appeal of any contrary decisions to some higher and independent authority (Which may be a court-of-law OR, for schools, a Board of directors/regents/trustees)

In some places witnesses must testify "on oath or affirmation" and be subject to criminal penalties for "Perjury" or "False Swearing".