Article (PDF) / Archive attached
by Alan Korwin, Sentinel Editor Emeritus
The Uninvited Ombudsman
The U.S. Constitution has weak mechanisms for correcting violations of its terms. For all its splendid strengths this lack is its Achilles heel, a tragic flaw.
Voting is the first solution that springs to mind. But a handful of problems interfere with that formerly glorious balancing tool our Founders established, especially in light of the widely promoted myth that “The 2020 election was the most secure in history.”
Wisdom often attributed to dictator Josef Stalin is familiar, the mass-murdering tyrant who was reputed to have said—It doesn’t matter who votes—what matters is who counts the votes. That is certainly true in banana republics worldwide. Whether it’s the case here is a matter of some dispute, along with set dates for voting, and counting, who’s eligible to vote, voter verification, audit trails, and much more. It’s not as secure as lockstep talking heads would have you believe.
Getting on the ballot in the first place presents a nearly insurmountable challenge to many who would seek office. The cost has become astro nomical, banning all but the elite ultra-rich, or someone supported by that tight-knit cabal. The cost in time, effort, family ties, and lifestyle adds to the problem of finding anyone—qualified or not—willing to experience the gauntlet. Not anyone can run for president either, but this is now sometimes ignored (“natural born Citizens,” defined in Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5).
You don’t need me to tell you our courts and Dept. of Justice have become corrupted to such an extent that confidence in them is low, and justice is as likely dispensed in the halls as in the chambers. So-called “news” media tries cases before they are even brought, and peddles or obscures the outcomes in colors of their choosing. Even getting accurate information to cast your ballot is challenging.
But it seems like the lack of punishment in terms of our great charter may present the biggest problem—and the one most easily remedied. Today, politicians and bureaucrats, basically, do whatever they please, regardless of conditions set on their specifically enumerated limited powers. How else could we get blatant infringements on rights to own, carry, trade, use or even openly discuss firearms? It’s reprehensible—intolerable acts foisted on a docile public unwilling to revolt. (Intolerable Acts, also known as the Coercive Acts from England, in 1774, preceded and helped instigate our War for Independence after the Boston Tea Party.)
Now I’m not saying my proposal here would be easy or even possible to enact now, given the current state of affairs. Mass media and communications in general are so encumbered that even garnering sufficient public support for this idea might be a steep uphill climb. Mass media, in particular, has so badly conflated armed crime and criminals with decent gun ownership and use, the two are tightly linked in the public mind, a hopelessly bogus notion. That false equivalence does harm but is very useful for power brokers who want the population quiescent and on soma. Still, this would fix things:
“Any elected or appointed official who proffers a proposal designed or capable of infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms has committed Simple Infringement, a misdemeanor. Any effort to implement a new or extant infringement is Aggravated Infringement, a felony. These offenses apply to all other enumerated rights.”
Legislators will hang extra meat on these bones as they see fit. Of course, they'll resist the concept overall. It steals their power. The arguments against it will be many, including, “Who decides what’s an infringement?” and they may say the 14th Amendment already covers this (if you ignore the total lack of action).
Justice Antonin Scalia, Thomas Jefferson, and others have already given us the real answer: When in doubt first go to the relevant words of the Constitution. Next, use common sense, or paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: You know it when you see it. Gun bans are an infringement. Bans cannot be allowed to stand. ✡
by Alan Korwin, Sentinel Editor Emeritus
The Uninvited Ombudsman
The U.S. Constitution has weak mechanisms for correcting violations of its terms. For all its splendid strengths this lack is its Achilles heel, a tragic flaw.
Voting is the first solution that springs to mind. But a handful of problems interfere with that formerly glorious balancing tool our Founders established, especially in light of the widely promoted myth that “The 2020 election was the most secure in history.”
Wisdom often attributed to dictator Josef Stalin is familiar, the mass-murdering tyrant who was reputed to have said—It doesn’t matter who votes—what matters is who counts the votes. That is certainly true in banana republics worldwide. Whether it’s the case here is a matter of some dispute, along with set dates for voting, and counting, who’s eligible to vote, voter verification, audit trails, and much more. It’s not as secure as lockstep talking heads would have you believe.
Getting on the ballot in the first place presents a nearly insurmountable challenge to many who would seek office. The cost has become astro nomical, banning all but the elite ultra-rich, or someone supported by that tight-knit cabal. The cost in time, effort, family ties, and lifestyle adds to the problem of finding anyone—qualified or not—willing to experience the gauntlet. Not anyone can run for president either, but this is now sometimes ignored (“natural born Citizens,” defined in Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5).
You don’t need me to tell you our courts and Dept. of Justice have become corrupted to such an extent that confidence in them is low, and justice is as likely dispensed in the halls as in the chambers. So-called “news” media tries cases before they are even brought, and peddles or obscures the outcomes in colors of their choosing. Even getting accurate information to cast your ballot is challenging.
But it seems like the lack of punishment in terms of our great charter may present the biggest problem—and the one most easily remedied. Today, politicians and bureaucrats, basically, do whatever they please, regardless of conditions set on their specifically enumerated limited powers. How else could we get blatant infringements on rights to own, carry, trade, use or even openly discuss firearms? It’s reprehensible—intolerable acts foisted on a docile public unwilling to revolt. (Intolerable Acts, also known as the Coercive Acts from England, in 1774, preceded and helped instigate our War for Independence after the Boston Tea Party.)
Now I’m not saying my proposal here would be easy or even possible to enact now, given the current state of affairs. Mass media and communications in general are so encumbered that even garnering sufficient public support for this idea might be a steep uphill climb. Mass media, in particular, has so badly conflated armed crime and criminals with decent gun ownership and use, the two are tightly linked in the public mind, a hopelessly bogus notion. That false equivalence does harm but is very useful for power brokers who want the population quiescent and on soma. Still, this would fix things:
“Any elected or appointed official who proffers a proposal designed or capable of infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms has committed Simple Infringement, a misdemeanor. Any effort to implement a new or extant infringement is Aggravated Infringement, a felony. These offenses apply to all other enumerated rights.”
Legislators will hang extra meat on these bones as they see fit. Of course, they'll resist the concept overall. It steals their power. The arguments against it will be many, including, “Who decides what’s an infringement?” and they may say the 14th Amendment already covers this (if you ignore the total lack of action).
Justice Antonin Scalia, Thomas Jefferson, and others have already given us the real answer: When in doubt first go to the relevant words of the Constitution. Next, use common sense, or paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: You know it when you see it. Gun bans are an infringement. Bans cannot be allowed to stand. ✡
