Sunday, August 11, 2019

Bill of Rights are Individual Rights


There are 3 documents that are considered the whole and are inseparable. As always, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. These are the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson was the principal drafter of the Declaration and James Madison of the Bill of Rights; Madison, along with Gouverneur Morris and James Wilson, was also one of the principal architects of the Constitution. I will assert here that the whole was conceptualized by one mind, who had it all resolved before any was put to pen.
Most importantly, the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are based on the idea that all people have certain fundamental rights that governments are created to protect. Those rights include common law rights, which come from British sources like the Magna Carta, or natural rights, which, the Founders believed, came from God. The Founders believed that natural rights are inherent in all people by virtue of their being human and that certain of these rights are unalienable, meaning they cannot be surrendered to government under any circumstances. One should underline all people and inalienable.
Inalienable right refers to rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else, especially a natural right such as the right to own property. ... These rights cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime.
The Declaration stands on its own—it has never been amended—while the Constitution has been amended 27 times. The Declaration and Bill of Rights set limitations on government; the Constitution was designed both to create an energetic government and also to constrain it. The Declaration was signed by the Delegates, each of them. You could legitimately say that they signed it with their own blood since we were at war and their signatures would have consigned them to treason with death as their reward.
The author of the Declaration was not even in audience throughout most of the writing of any of it. He was in Paris as our Ambassador of France. He was, however, the architect of each—the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Jefferson had been elected as Chairman of the Committee to draft the Declaration, all the while in residence in Paris. Jefferson had 17 days to produce the document and reportedly wrote a draft in a day or two. In a rented room not far from the State House, he wrote the Declaration with few books and pamphlets beside him, except for a copy of George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights and the draft Virginia Constitution, which Jefferson had written himself. He did not pull this stuff out of the air. He had a template, if you will. I find the most important sentence of the Declaration to be, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In other words, when Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and began to articulate some of the rights that were ultimately enumerated in the Bill of Rights, he wasn’t inventing these rights out of thin air.
How could Jefferson write this at a time that he and other Founders who signed the Declaration owned slaves? The document was an expression of an ideal. In his personal conduct, Jefferson violated it. But the ideal—“that all men are created equal”—came to take on a life of its own and is now considered the most perfect embodiment of the American creed. Some things do not happen overnight, but this did happen over time. Furthermore, there were laws in the Colonies at that time which precluded a slaveholder to release slaves other than to sell them to another slaveholder while personally accompanying them to that slaveholder. In other words, slaveowners were constrained by statutes.
In addition to its promise of equality, Jefferson’s preamble is also a promise of liberty. Like the other Founders, he was steeped in the political philosophy of the Enlightenment, in philosophers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, Francis Hutcheson, and Montesquieu. All of them believed that people have certain unalienable and inherent rights that come from God, not government, or come simply from being human. They also believed that when people form governments, they give those governments control over certain natural rights to ensure the safety and security of other rights. Jefferson, George Mason, and the other Founders frequently spoke of the same set of rights as being natural and unalienable.
It took 4 months of debate to draft the Constitution. You can see the entirety of the debate in Madison’s Notes on the Constitution. It is no mystery, it is documented. You can also see it after the fact in the Federalist Papers. There is no excuse for anyone to have a lack of understanding of the Framers’ intent.
The Constitution was originally sent to the 13 Colonies without a Bill of Rights. 9 states originally ratified it but others would not at this juncture. This was the point at which the Bill or Rights entered into the quotient. Madison was not favorable originally to a Bill of Rights, believing they were unnecessary/ dangerous for 2 reasons:
1)    Because the federal government was granted no power to abridge individual liberty
2)   Dangerous since it implied that the federal government had the power to infringe liberty in the first place
Madison clung to his belief until he sought the advice and counsel of his mentor, Thomas Jefferson. What took place was an exchange of letters between Jefferson, while in Paris, and Madison at home. I have those letters. They are contained in a book in my library. In those letters, Jefferson named each of the individual rights that he urged to be included and ratified. Jefferson had his own personal copying machine. I saw it myself in Monticello. Damnedest contraption I’ve ever seen but also damned effective. Without it, I would not be writing this and we would not know the man behind all 3 of those documents, which I consider sacrosanct.
What happened next was the proof of the pudding. James Madison introduced a series of Constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives for consideration. Among his proposals was one that would have added introductory language stressing natural rights to the preamble. Another would apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal government. Several sought to protect individual personal rights by limiting various Constitutional powers of Congress. Like Washington and Jefferson, Madison urged Congress to keep the revision to the Constitution "a moderate one", limited to protecting individual rights. They did limit the Constitutional powers of Congress, explicitly in Article 1, Section 8, for all us to see and understand. All else was left to the States and to the People, in Amendments 9 and 10.
The Delegates concurred. In the end, by pulling from the amendments proposed by state ratifying conventions and Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, Madison proposed 19 amendments to the Constitution. Congress approved 12 amendments to be sent to the states for ratification. Only 10 of the amendments were ultimately ratified in 1791 and became the Bill of Rights. The 2 Amendments not included in the Bill of Rights were essentially housekeeping matters for Congress that came later, not having to do with Individual Rights.
What did Jefferson say about what ultimately become the 2nd Amendment? Jefferson was adamant, he felt the States might become the true barrier of our individual liberties. He wrote:
“Nor can they be constrained to it by any force he can possess…ready organized for action by their governor, constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms; and that militia too, regularly formed into regiments and battalions, into infantry, cavalry and artillery.”
This is the precedent for the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, as are the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. These rights are not to be abridged:
In addition, the militia are codified in Title 10 Section 246.
10 US Code Title 10 Sect 246
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
--In other words, we are all the militia.
Constitutional revisionists stipulate that it is not an individual right to bear arms. They are defeated on two counts. Each of the first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, are explicitly Individual Rights. Secondly, see paragraph 2 above, the unorganized militia. As usual, they usually paint themselves into a corner with their specious arguments.
One often hears much about the Federal Supremacy Clause and how the Federal Government is Supreme in all things. Not! It is only supreme in those rights of the federal government iterated in Article 1 Section 8. Once again, all else is left to the States and to the People.
For example, the Right of Naturalization is listed as a federal government function and thus, supreme, with respect to Naturalization. By that, I mean that State Governments have no dog in that hunt. The federal government and in fact, the President, has the sole authority on matters respecting Naturalization.
Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
While I often times call the Fourteenth Amendment as the most redundant Amendment on the planet, as it repeats the Supremacy Clause as well as the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, however this reaffirms the fact that the States cannot violate our rights that are protected by the United States Constitution. Conversely, with respect to the 14th Amendment, non-citizens are guaranteed nothing, anywhere in the 14th Amendment or the Constitution generally. Just disabuse yourself of that notion. If you hear an argument otherwise, their argument is without respect to the Constitution and they usually refer to what they call Case Law, which in relation to the Constitution is a nonsense.
When it comes to Red Flag Laws, everything about them is unconstitutional and ought to be resisted on all fronts. Red Flag laws are in direct violation of the Second Amendment
Fourth Amendment
Fifth Amendment
Sixth Amendment
Seventh Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment
If we are complacent and apathetic on the issue, we will quickly lose not only our gun rights, but our due process rights along with them! In this, Federal Law is Supreme, inalienable and without abridgement. Period!
The only rights that States retain with respect to firearms/ militia is the right to appoint officers and provide the training of the militia. We, you and I, are the militia.

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

We Are the Militia


A study from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows 89 percent of mass shootings between 1998 and June 2019 occurred in gun-free zones.
CPRC reports 21st mass shooters are not typically religious, “80 percent are at least 21 years of age,” and the majority of them–56 percent–views handguns as the weapon of choice for an attack. Rifles alone have only been used in 13 percent of 21st century mass shootings. Shotguns alone have only been used in four percent.
Weigh popular Democrat gun control campaigns in light of these finding and it quickly becomes evident that gun control is not the solution to mass shootings.
For instance, one popular control is to raise the age for rifle purchases to 21 years of age. What good does this do when 80 percent of mass shooters are 21-year-old or older?
Another gun control push is to ban “assault rifles.” But this is an impotent approach when you consider the fact that rifles alone are used in only 13 percent of attacks, while handguns are the overarching weapon of choice.
Ironically, the one thing that could diminish mass shootings is to go in the other direction and repeal gun control statutes that create gun-free zones. As recently as the July 28, 2019, Gilroy Garlic Festival, and the May 31, 2019 attack at Virginia Beach, we saw that gun-free zones turn people into sitting ducks. Such zones guarantee attackers will find a captive audience; one that cannot shoot back or respond in a lethal way.
The Virginia Tech attack (April 16, 2007), Aurora movie theater attack (July 20, 2012), Sandy Hook Elementary School attack (December 14, 2012), DC Navy Yard attack (September 16, 2013), San Bernardino attack (December 2, 2015), Orlando Pulse attack (June 12, 2016), Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School attack (February 14, 2018), and the Borderline Bar & Grill attack (November 7, 2018), all constitute mass shooting incidents that Democrats use again and again to push gun control. Every one of these attacks occurred in gun-free zones.
The problem is not the gun, but the statutes barring law-abiding citizens from having guns with them for self-defense. I, for one, ignore those stupid signs put up stipulating it is a gun-free zone. I am armed and will be armed. Period!
We have been required to have guns since we stepped onto the shores near Jamestown. Each glebe had a militia, each colony had a militia and the local militia were instrumental in conquering the British and sending them back home to King George. The militia were comprised of every able-bodied man between the ages of 17-55. They were to be armed as was the standing army with their arms in their personal possession. They were to “keep and bear” those arms. I know this from my own family research/ genealogy. My family arrived in Boston in the Fall of 1718. I have lists of their being a part of the local militia from Pennsylvania where they first lived in Mt. Joy, Chester/ Lancaster County. Then, they were listed in the militia in Lunenburg, VA; that was followed to their being listed in the militia of Surry Co, NC, then Rowan Co, NC, then Iredell Co, NC, then Mecklenburg Co, NC, followed by Stewart Co, TN. Then came the Civil War; by that time, they were in the militia of Izard Co, AR. At that time in our history, the local militia elected their Captain. My GGGrandfather, Robert Calvin Matthews, was elected Captain. He fought for the Confederacy in the Trans-Mississippi Theatre, primarily under two different Confederate Generals. These militia lists were considered another form of census, along with Tithables Lists, Tax Lists, etc.
We remain the militia, you and I; it is written:
2nd Amendment Text: “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”
There are 2 separate issues mentioned—the [1] militia and right of the [2] people to keep AND bear arms. I know what it means. It is not that difficult to understand. People who argue otherwise just like to argue. It is a lost argument.
10 US Code Title 10 Sect 246
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
--In other words, we are all the militia. There is no exception for the “Mentally ill”, nor should there be unless that is accompanied by an adjudication that disqualifies the possession of firearms by court order. Those would not pass a background check. Period! They must be “able-bodied”.
I grew up with those who were “mentally challenged” or “mentally ill” in a small town. We all know who they were. I would never be the one to say they do not have the right of self-protection. Would you?--to protect oneself or one’s family is a natural right, by whatever means, not bestowed of man but by the Creator. If you are looking for easy answers, there aren’t any.
Black's Law Dictionary Definition of able-bodied:
"A person who is capable of serving in the military. It does mean that there are no defects but that a person is able."
This sign is a danger to society...



Papa Bird Momma Bird Baby Bird

In 1962, you could order guns from mail order catalogs by simply sending in a check. I remember this quite well--I was in the 8th grade then. There were no background checks, no license required, & no restrictions. Almost anyone could get a gun. My dad took me out one time with his 20 ga. Remington pump shotgun and showed me the basics; how to load, unload, cross a fence, etc. I hunted quail with friends and we all were quite familiar with how to handle a firearm. We also knew how to field strip the birds by teaching each other.
There was no such thing as a mass shooting. What happened? It is not that difficult to ascertain with just common sense. What if I had not had a father to show me the basics--the basics were taught us so that we would not accidentally shoot oneself or those in our hunting party. It was a given that taking a life with a firearm was outside of the realm of possibility. We knew that of course; "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was part of our childhood instruction in church. What if we had not gone to church WITH both parents and siblings and seeing our friends in Sunday School and Church. We were taught parameters and boundaries; at home, in church and at school. Our parents reinforced what we were taught in school by reinforcing the teachers and administrators. Things were strict, very strict. Parameters and boundaries were strict and strictly enforced. Children need that, pre-teens and teens need that. One of the boys I raised told me after he graduated college that he appreciated my being strict. He is strict now too. He is raising a daughter and ended up adopting his wife's niece, whose home life was chaos. They live in Long Beach, CA but both girls are on their way to OU, not some crack house in LA like many of their contemporaries.
It was a given when we left high school, knowing the boundaries and parameters, we had the tools to make our own way, albeit learning as we lived that it was a challenge, but it was our challenge now. There was no basement at mommy's place to return if we stumbled. Dad was still there with mom and that was not an option. It all was a given with the two I raised and that was a known quantity.
If those boundaries, lines and parameters are compromised or abridged, the results are predictable. Nature is predictable and it is very instructive. Momma bird pushes baby bird from the limb to make them fly. Poppa bird may be nearby in case there is a crash but it is momma that does the pushing from the limb. If those baby birds aren't pushed, they will not fly. That should be clear. If there is no poppa bird nearby in case of a crash, the results are usually fatal.
Guns are here and here they will remain. We are supposed to have firearms. That is actually in the Constitution and in the statutes. We, you and I, are the militia. There are more firearms presently than people. That will not change, nor should it. What we need are strong momma birds and poppa birds, boundaries and parameters, and begin by filling in those basements with solid concrete, forever. Otherwise, move and do not leave a forwarding address.


Friday, March 15, 2019

Age of Enlightenment


It is said by some that the WWII generation was “The Greatest Generation”. Sorry Tom Brokaw, it was minuscule in comparison to The Age of Enlightenment. Compared to the generations of today maybe but there has never been anything that compares to that time of greats from about 1685 to 1815. These were renaissance men with math and science. The Age of Enlightenment was also known as the Age of Reason. Only a classical education of great minds could have produced this phenomenon.
European politics, philosophy, science and communications were radically reoriented during the course of the “long 18th century” (1685-1815) as part of a movement referred to by its participants as the Age of Reason, or simply the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, was a time when man began to use his reason to discover the world, casting off the superstition and fear of the medieval world. ... Enlightenment thinkers examined the rational basis of all beliefs and in the process rejected the absolute authority of church and state.
Enlightened would-be revolutionaries like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, whose “Declaration of Independence” (1776) framed the American Revolution in terms taken from of John Locke’s essays.
The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of knowledge and advanced ideals such as libertyprogresstolerationfraternityconstitutional government and separation of church and state.
Six Key Ideas. At least six ideas came to punctuate American Enlightenment thinking: deism, liberalism, republicanism, conservatism, toleration and scientific progress. Many of these were shared with European Enlightenment thinkers, but in some instances took a uniquely American form.
Although there is no consensus about the exact span of time that corresponds to the American Enlightenment, it is safe to say that it occurred during the eighteenth century among thinkers in British North America and the early United States and was inspired by the ideas of the British and French Enlightenments.  Based on the metaphor of bringing light to the Dark Age, the Age of the Enlightenment (Siècle des lumières in French and Aufklärung in German) shifted allegiances away from absolute authority, whether religious or political, to more skeptical and optimistic attitudes about human nature, religion and politics.  In the American context, thinkers such as Thomas Paine, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin invented and adopted revolutionary ideas about scientific rationality, religious toleration and experimental political organization—ideas that would have far-reaching effects on the development of the fledgling nation.  Some coupled science and religion in the notion of deism; others asserted the natural rights of man in the anti-authoritarian doctrine of liberalism; and still others touted the importance of cultivating virtue, enlightened leadership and community in early forms of republican thinking. At least six ideas came to punctuate American Enlightenment thinking: deism, liberalism, republicanism, conservatism, toleration and scientific progress. Many of these were shared with European Enlightenment thinkers, but in some instances took a uniquely American form. It also stressed individualism over collectivism. Those who yearn for a Socialist State or a Democratic Socialist leaning need to understand that collectivism is incompatible with what the Framers set out. Collectivism is conducive to making sausage. We have a Constitutional Republic, devoid of a despotic monarch like George III.
The Enlightenment, sometimes called the 'Age of Enlightenment', was a late 17th- and 18th-century intellectual movement emphasizing reason, individualism, and skepticism. The Enlightenment presented a challenge to traditional religious views. Enlightenment thinkers were the liberals of their day.
Can you even consider putting Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell on stage with these men? I would put Pelosi as a chamber pot maid and Mitch McConnell as a stall mucker or maybe carriage attendant. Think too of these presidential candidates now lining up at the trough. I think more along the lines of the Bowery Boys or Little Rascals rather than Enlightened. Reason and enlightened thought are simply beyond their reach. I will take our Constitution and leave these nincompoops to Barnum & Bailey.
McConnell is the product of the 17th Amendment which should never have happened and must be repealed to make this Constitutional Republic whole again. That was the brain child of Woodrow Wilson, speaking of Democrat Socialists.
Thomas Paine may have been best known for “The Rights of Man”. It should be read, especially by those who tout the Democrat Socialist form of governments. Here’s a clue for you; neither Medicare for All nor a college education are a “Right”. In both cases, you get what you pay for. No national government is capable or responsible for providing either. Nowhere is it written that either is a Right of Man. Those are the prerogative of the States and/ or the People.


Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Our “Rights”?


Where are these children getting their information on our “Rights”? I am pretty familiar with our founding documents—the Preamble, the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights; the only place where I find a listing of our rights. I find nowhere that we have a “right” to a college education. About 18% of us receive a baccalaureate. Generally speaking, this demographic is largely from middle to upper middle income group. Why would this 18% get the idea that they should receive special treatment to a free college education? Where is it written; in our founding documents or anywhere for that matter? It is not even in the Magna Carta. Our Founders were quite familiar with that document. Where do these mindless nymphs find that healthcare is a right? Where is that written, anywhere? The rights granted to us are Natural Rights, bestowed by our Creator. Healthcare is not “free” in any system of government, under any economic system. Either we pay for it individually or we pay the government to provide it through taxation. That seems to be a concept not understood by these upstarts. WE, YOU AND I, pay for it one way or the other. Proponents of a government managed healthcare system seem unable to understand that their idea of “free healthcare” simply adds an unnecessary middle man to administer healthcare, the federal government. Our founding documents provide Art 1 Sect 8, spelling out what our federal government can provide. Neither a college education nor healthcare is listed. Anything not on that list is left to the States and to the People. The rights we are provided are not commercial goods or services having a price tag. So, where do they get this nonsense? Now we have charlatans and snake oil salesmen selling this nonsense as candidates for public office, humoring these spoiled rotten children. Poppycock!
I simply cannot find written anywhere that we have a “right” to anything even remotely related to a “free” anything.

Friday, March 1, 2019

White People Socialism

I am pretty sure that AOC and her genre have no idea what it is exactly but it does have a classical definition:
socialism noun
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
All in favor, say "AYE" 
It is clear to me that most of her genre are willing to give it all up as long as the government is her nanny. I think they do need a babysitter. JS


White People Socialism
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-want-white-people-socialism?fbclid=IwAR0mF0LlpeQe7jJJR-kSUcIMklHQDaCs0xS6axB6C6ugEM9lqJ_H1FFUfvc

Falsies


The argument, now being employed by Republican Senators to oppose the Declaration of a National Emergency is a false argument and is as transparent as are they. They stipulate that it sets a bad precedent, further stipulating that the next president may be a fruitcake and follow that precedent. They know better.
From Abraham Lincoln’s decision to suspend habeas corpus in 1861 to Harry Truman’s ordering the Secretary of Commerce to seize control of the steel mills amid a 1952 wartime strike, presidents have occasionally seen fit to step outside the bounds of normal government. By proclaiming a national emergency, the President “may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”
Since Congress further legislated on the matter in 1976, EVERY President has asserted a National Emergency and most have been rather silly, unlike this one, which goes to the very heart of the Constitution and this Sovereign Republic—Provide for the Common Defense and Insure Domestic Tranquility, two of the three prongs guaranteed in our original document. I listed here previously the 31 National Emergencies just since 1976, under President Jimmy Carter.
Declaration of Emergency in the Constitution
Article II, which vests the Executive Power in the President, also specifically makes her/ him Commander in Chief of the army and navy, as well as of the militia when called into actual federal service (§ 2), and charges her, among other things, with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed (§ 3). In addition to these allocations of responsibility to particular branches of the federal government, the Constitution contains one other empowering provision relating to similar circumstances, namely Article IV § 4, the so-called "guaranty clause", which calls on the federal government not only to guarantee to every state a republican form of government, but also to protect it against invasion and (when asked) domestic violence.
First, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (permitting a person to obtain judicial review of the validity of his detention, in a proceeding independent of that, if any, in which the detention was ordered) cannot be suspended, "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." [Art 1 Section 9 Clause 2].
Second, no one may be charged with a capital or otherwise infamous crime without an indictment by a grand jury, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger." [5th Amendment Clause 1].
Third, no state may engage in war, "unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." [Art 1 Sect 10 Clause Para 3].
Finally, one other provision of similar, if less specifically military character may be mentioned: that which allows the President "on extraordinary Occasions" to convene one or both houses of Congress. [Art 2 Section 3 Clause 2].
In summary, the President of the United States has ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, under the Constitution, notwithstanding the 1976 statute.
These US Senators are perpetuating a false argument.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1X43iWbGgUpb0N35iLwx7WNmO4bC54lqs