No, I did not write it. But I did read it the other night, not by staring at it with squinty eyes while displayed on a computer screen but on honest to goodness paper, in its original form, something that a lot of us have forgotten how to do. And I must tell you in all sincerity that it is truly a remarkable document, especially when you consider when and the conditions under which it was written.
I am not going to bring up the Second Amendment because that is a foregone conclusion. However, there are other sections that are worth taking note of considering the state of affairs and the current events that engulf us.
There are a number of people running around as of late allegedly to protect our country and our way of life who have either forgotten or have chosen to ignore the precepts upon which our country and its institutions were founded. Amendment IV of our Constitution says: “The right of the people to be secure……against unreasonable searches and seizures…….and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation………..”, the key words here being, “supported by Oath or affirmation”. I guess someone forgot about that.
Amendment VI of the Constitution says, in brief: “In all criminal prosecutions………by an impartial jury……..to be confronted with the witnesses against him…..” What witnesses? Let them come forth and testify under oath. And this takes us back to the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The First Amendment is very explicit in that it grants to the press, the freedom of the press, but nowhere in it does it grant the press, or the media, the right to conduct trials. Some people refer to it as fake news. When I went to school it was called, “yellow journalism”, which most of you should know of unless you cut class that day. William Randolph Hearst, or “Citizen Kane” if you prefer, was a master of that art. It sure sold a lot of papers back then or a lot of TV advertising today. Trial via the media? Why not trial by fire or combat as in ancient times? For those who may be interested in news as opposed to commentary, there is the BBC Channel, which is admittedly somewhat boring because they don’t take sides.
For some time now I have heard commentators on TV or have read a number of op-ed letters in the papers that claim the following: “Everyone knows there is sufficient evidence out there regarding the Trump collusion with Russia”. Everyone? I say that if you have such evidence then it is your duty to bring it to the attention of the authorities and if you do not then you are guilty of obstructing justice. Yeah, right.
Section 2. of Article IV of the Constitution says: “A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony or other crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.”
Shades of Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States. I am not an expert on Constitutional law, or anything else for that matter, but it seems to me that Jerry Brown and his well meaning but ill informed minions are guilty of violating Section 2. of Article IV of the Constitution, if not in practice then certainly in thought.
Furthermore, Section 2. of Article II of the Constitution says: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States……..” It seems to me therefore that the President is Commander of the National Guard of the State of California, not Jerry Brown.
There are many people out there who do not like the conditions that are imposed on them by the Constitution because they may be contrary to their stated beliefs of the day, whatever they are. For those who would seek to amend the Constitution, the procedures are contained therein, which provide for an orderly change. For those who would rather do away with the Constitution, I must remind them that it is because of the Constitution that they are granted the right to speak out the way they do, which in numerous other countries would be met with something a lot more severe than mere censure.