Today’s #Point2Ponder:

Every day I receive questions from people wanting clarification on Constitutional issues.  Today I received a question regarding our Right to Keep and Bear Arms and I wanted to share with you all my answer:

KrisAnne, I listen to your podcasts every week and appreciate the education you offer.  I have a question for you that I cannot figure out on my own and I trust few, maybe non other than you, on constitutional commentary.

Question: can the federal government amend the constitution in such a way as to alter or abolish the 2nd amendment?
I’m wondering if some natural rights are inherently protected and free from any constitutional amendments to the contrary, or, so long as the amendment passes based on constitutional rules, can the constitution basically say anything including a direct violation of natural rights?

I really appreciate any help you might be able to offer on this issue (which isn’t specific to the 2nd Amendment).

MY ANSWER:

There is good news and bad news.  Article V of the Constitution establishes a mechanism for the Constitution to be amended.  Any amendment must be approved by 3/4 of the States in the Union.  The bad news is that it is possible through this mechanism to amend the 2nd Amendment.  The good news is that your Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not grated to you by the Constitution, the government, or by any person.  Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Natural Right and cannot be taken away.  Samuel Adams wrote an essay titled; The Rights of the Colonists.  In this essay he gives us this understanding:

Today’s #Point2Ponder

The Senate has begun to hold confirmation hearings for Donald Trump’s cabinet nominations.  Confirmation hearings were not meant to be “just a formality” or simply a rubber stamp for presidential picks.  The Senate’s role in confirmation is an essential check on presidential power.  Frankly, the Senate’s check was established to keep a president from becoming a king.

In Federalist #69 (http://goo.gl/paCocu) Alexander Hamilton gives an in depth explanation on why this Congressional check is vital in the distinction between a president and a king.  Within this understanding, Hamilton points out that a President is to have “a concurrent authority with a branch of the legislature in appointing offices.”  However, a king “is the sole author of all appointments.”

When Senators fail in their duty to sincerely vet presidential nominations, they are negligent in their sacred trust from of the people and their irresponsibility creates kings.

Unfortunately, our current Senators seem more concerned with playing political games than keeping presidents from becoming kings.  These hearings will be the perfect test to determine whether YOUR Senator is doing his job or just playing political games.  The confirmation hearing of Senator Jeff Sessions will be their best measure.

Sen. Jeff Sessions is being nominated for director of the Department of Justice.  He is a Republican.  The Senate has a Republican majority.  Did your Senator properly vet Sessions or did your Senator just give his rubber stamp in the name of politics?

As a director of the DOJ, Sessions should be specifically limited and bound by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments in our Bill of Rights.  A Senator doing his job will have properly crafted the majority of Session’s vetting questions to include the assurance of preservation of these essential Rights.

The 4th Amendment codifies the individual’s inalienable Right to be secure in their person, property, and Rights (to include but not be limited to privacy) against unlawful government searches and seizures.  This Right to security of our Rights is so critical to the preservation of Liberty, James Madison said that government cannot be just without out it.

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.” Property, 1792

This Right to security from government seizures is so essential the drafters of our Constitution gave it only one exception.  To know that single exception please read this careful explanation: https://goo.gl/RIa3uM

Sen. Jeff Sessions cannot pass a Constitutional vetting test.  He has consistently and aggressively called for federal agents to be free and clear of these specific limitations upon federal power.  Sessions has supported and promoted legislation time and time again to allow exceptions to the 4th Amendment that simply do not exist.  Sessions’ actions prove he believes government “necessity” outweighs your inalienable Rights.

William Pitt, the Younger said in 1783:

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.  It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

When those like Sessions profess their necessity overrides our Rights, they are doing us a great courtesy; they have identified themselves as tyrants.

“Liberty and Justice for all” is a promise of America.  As the President and Senate choose a director of the Department of Justice (as well as other cabinet members) they should be choosing people who are more adamant about securing our Liberty than creating exceptions to their limited power.  Justice is not served when government agents can ignore our Rights, circumvent the Constitution, and operate with arbitrary and self-limited power.

Here is the test; will our Senators vet all presidential nomination with real Constitutional questions and expose those whose real priorities put government operation over Liberty and Justice?  Or, will our Senators put Party over Constitutional Principles and allow these wolves to continue to prowl about DC in their sheepskin suits?