by Karl Denninger, Market Ticker:

It really isn’t.

The latest attack is that Kavanaugh lacks the temperament to be a Justice.

Oh really?

So one who wishes to perform a public service job, no matter the position, is supposed to sit and be questioned by people who have referred to you as “evil” and accused you of being a serial gang-rapist — a capital felony — without one shred of evidence and yet be polite in response?

I think not.

In fact the proper response to that is “pistols at 20 paces, *******!” and it wasn’t that long ago where such a statement would merit exactly that response.

Funny how people didn’t make that kind of claim unless they were willing to duel over it.  The potential for being immediately drilled in response to such a statement has a powerful effect in focusing your mind before your yap opens and, if it doesn’t, then you tend to be removed from the gene pool.

No, my issue with Kavanaugh and the entire rest of the court, which I argue renders it entirely moot and something that the people of the United States should erect a big fat middle finger to (and dare the Justices to try to enforce their rulings) rests in this lie:

Kavanaugh concluded that if he’s confirmed by the Senate to the vacant seat on the bench, he “will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.”

Nonsense.

The First Amendment opens with Congress shall make no law.

It then lists Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religion as three things Congress may not abridge through any law.

In addition the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant before a search can be conducted, signed by a judge, demonstrating probable cause that a crime has been committed.

Yet Kavanaugh has opined in formal rulings that NSLs (National Security Letters) are Constitutional.

No, they are not.

First, they permit searches and seizures without prior judicial review and without a finding of probable cause.  They are an administrative subpoena and by definition administrative subpoenas are all flatly unconstitutional.

Second, they contain a gag clause.

As such they violate both the First and Fourth Amendments.  Any judge or justice ruling such are constitutional has violated their oath of office and declared themselves in open armed rebellion against the Constitution of the United States since these outrages are inevitably served and enforced by armed members of the government.

A recipient of such a NSL has every right under our Constitution to refuse that demand.  Of course that would result in said person getting shot, right?

THE MERE ISSUANCE OF SUCH A DOCUMENT IS A NULLITY AND THUS WHEN BACKED UP WITH THE THREAT OF FORCE SINCE THE PREDICATE CLAIM IS VOID THE MERE SERVICE OF SUCH A “LETTER” IS FELONY ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON BY THE PERSON PRESENTING SAME.

In addition Kavanaugh believes in a “usual” test for firearms laws.  The Second Amendment, on the other hand, is clear:

The right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If you fail to understand how to parse the preamble to that statement and the difference between a dependent and independent clause go back to Grammar School. If you fail to understand that a right is something humans have that pre-dates government then you are either ignorant or a tyrant yourself.

The simple fact of the matter is that the NFA, GCA, Brady and more are all unconstitutional.

“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.”

The 2nd Amendment is clear: The dependent clause explains why the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right all persons have and which in fact pre-dates all government, shall not be infringed.  If you read The Federalist and Anti-Federalist you will find that both groups debating the founding of the nation agreed that the federal government had no authority to regulate the arms owned and born by or to disarm the citizens AT ALL under ANY circumstances.

Indeed the entire debate among the Founders rested on whether the 2nd Amendment was necessary since both sides took as a matter of natural law the entire citizenry had a fundamental right to be armed in any way they so decided and to bear said arms when they wished or needed since such was an utter necessity arising from the natural law right to self-defense. Indeed the entire purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable you to say no to tyrants, whether the petty sort that robs you in the street or the organized sort that wear uniforms while claiming some government mandate and mean it.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting deer.  It is in fact about enforcing the natural law right to peaceful secession should it be asserted and the existing government reply is “NO!” — exactly as the British Crown did.  May I remind you that the shooting started over exactly that point; the British attempted confiscation of powder and ball….

Shall not be infringed means what it says.  It leaves no wiggle room and it doesn’t say “except for machine guns”, “except if there are terrorist attacks in the country”, or even “except if you previously committed a crime but have been released from court supervision.”

If gun control advocates had passed such a Constitutional Amendment including such phrases then it would be constitutional, albeit still a violation of natural law.  But that hasn’t happened and the historical record on the part of the Founders is not debatable.  Don’t believe me — go pick up The Federalist and Anti-Federalist and read both as they are the canonical source material.

Read More @ Market-Ticker.org