Stupidity In The Supreme Court!

Posted By on December 13, 2010

Well, well, well, once again the nation is subjected to the stupidity of at least one justice occupying a seat on the Supreme Court. This morning, December 12th, 2010, Justice Stephen Breyer appeared on “Fox News Sunday” and spewed his idiotic misconstruction of American history and in specific the history of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Quoting from an article on Fox News’ website:

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.

Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. ‘That can’t happen,’ said Madison,” said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison’s priority as, “I’ve got to get this document ratified.”

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

You may find the article “Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns,” by clicking the title.

Justice Breyer simply declares that he is either utterly stupid, willfully ignorant, OR – more dangerously – willfully reconstructing American History to push a definite agenda.

Let’s take a look at Justice Breyer’s concern about “granting individual rights.” First, it must be stated that the Bill of Rights does not grant the right to bear arms. What?!? David are you nuts?!?!?! Read the entire amendment carefully, all of it:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment II – 1789

The amendment clearly states this right already exists, and the government under the Constitution cannot infringe upon that right. It does not say:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, is hereby granted by this Constitution.

Further, the purpose of the Bill of Rights must be clarified:


Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several states as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution. viz.

Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and Ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.   (Emphasis added)

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses”. In other words, these amendments were added to keep the government away from certain inalienable rights, rights granted by nature and nature’s God, of which one of the primary ones held by the founding fathers was the right of self-defense which mandated the right to bear arms.

I would love to write more, but I will let the founding generation speak for themselves:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people
of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which
the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms
a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which
a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the
public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off
their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local
governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the
national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments,
and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest
assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in
spite of the legions which surround it.
— James Madison, Federalist #46, January 29, 1788

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.
— Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…
— Samuel Adams

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrany in government.
— Thomas Jefferson

The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals . . . It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
— Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, 7 October 1789

Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.
— James Madison

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people 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.
— Trench Coxe, “Remarks on the first part of the amendments to the Federal Constitution”, Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms…” – Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate.

“…to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836.

These really sound like the founding fathers would have allowed restricting gun rights, I write with ultimate sarcasm!

Let’s hear the words of that premier pacifist of the Twentieth Century, Mahatma Gandhi:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. (Emphasis added)

I’m glad he was a pacifist, again sarcasm.

Finally, how about Sigmond Freud?

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. —  General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

Maybe Justice Breyer is experiencing from this diagnosis, along with a vast majority of the members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the White House, the federal judiciary and local legislations.

About the author


3 Responses to “Stupidity In The Supreme Court!”

  1. David Bozarth says:

    From Nick via Email:

    He contradicts himself within his own statement. He states that Madison wanted gun control, but he knew that he could not get the Constitution ratified without the second amendment. Looks like Madison understood that the States knew their rights and place in view of the Feds.

    Justice Breyer your an idiot and not fit to sit on the court.

  2. CaptElaine says:

    You know the part of the Constitution that I think we should think VERY hard about is Article III, Section 1… The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour….

    That does NOT say LIFE… and I consider being IGNORANT of the Constitution and the Federalist papers… BAD Behaviour for a supreme court Judge?

    What say you?

  3. David Bozarth says:

    Excellent comment, Elaine!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: