Archive for March, 2016



Permit no longer needed.





Great news on the 2nd Amendment Front!



Last week, Idaho’s Governor signed into law S1389. This law states that citizens have the RIGHT to carry (bear) firearms in a concealed fashion without having to be ‘Permitted’ by the Government.



Permitless carry has been in the making in Idaho for nearly five years. SB1389 will take effect July 1, 2016.


The bill passed out of the House State Affairs Committee by a vote of 13-4 (76%) and then was later passed by the full House by a vote of 54-15 (78%). Finally, it passed the Idaho Senate with a 27-8 (77%) vote.”




Now, I’d like to remind  you folks that because of Idaho, this law is Good & Valid throughout the entire country — The Supreme Court has already ‘Opined’ on this issue. Remember “Obergefell_v._Hodges” just last year?

‘Due Process’ & ‘Equal Protection’ Clauses?

(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co-extensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause; and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374 , where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments from marrying. Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court has invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455 –461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality, see, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102 –121.

The Court has acknowledged the interlocking nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of the legal treatment of gays and lesbians. See Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 575. This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality. The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians. Pp. 18–22.

(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.



Let us re-write item 4 from above, shall we:


“(4) The right to carry concealed arms is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and within the plain wording of the 2nd Amendment, therefore citizens wishing to do so may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Legal citizens may exercise the fundamental right to carry concealed arms without any infringements.”





Letter from Idaho’s Governor.









Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Twenty Ninth Day of March in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Sixteen.

Read Full Post »

Great little write-up here.






The 19th Amendment did not create a right to vote in the Constitution, the Amendment only protects against discrimination based upon sex once a state has granted persons the right to vote. This is an important distinction in that Minor v. Happersett’s ruling on voting rights is still good law and has not been superseded by the 19th Amendment.



Voting is a ‘States Rights’ issue. States control the voting rules and the FEDS have no authority whatsoever over voting.

Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010.


Natural Born Citizen

[UPDATED: Dec. 27, 2011 – See green text below regarding SCOTUS syllabus.  I have made corrections as explained below to my own error on the topic.]


[UPDATED – 8:32 PM June 24, 2011. Updated material appears below in red.]

Since my last report, many people have asked why the definition in Minor v. Happersett of a “natural-born citizen” (as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens) is binding legal precedent.  The answer is in the Court’s holding that Virginia Minor was a US citizen…because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.  That part of the actual holding is listed in the official syallbus of the case.

And furthermore, Minor was the first case to hold that women…

View original post 2,075 more words

Read Full Post »