Thursday, August 25, 2011

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts paid to the insurrectionist theory:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

What? No mention of the Second Amendment in that passage??? Again, the Second Amendment cannot be construed as allowing insurrection, treason, or any other“change by violence, revolution and terrorism”.

6 comments:

  1. Shall not be infringedAugust 25, 2011 at 11:55 PM

    What I was going to say in my continuing posts was that the Blair I stood corrected, the Blair mountain battle was not an insurrection but self defense against the violence of the Baldwin-Felts, did the union have the right to respond to the BF violence?

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, they didn't.

    Extra-legal use of violence goes against the rule of law. This would be no different than the Hatfields and McCoys.

    On the other hand, it would be another story had the Sheriff requested governmental help in dealing with Baldwin-Felts.

    Both parties were in violation of the law.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shall not be infringedAugust 26, 2011 at 1:35 AM

    So the unions used guns and violence to try to protect their rights/lives/property, and you admire them, despite trying to disarm future union members, with your mideval interpretation of the second amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, how stupid are you to totally misinterpret what I said?

    I never said I admired them.

    I said that this event should be remembered and it would be bad for the battlefield to be destroyed by the mining interests.

    Medieval interpretation? Where do you come up with all this silly shit?

    And can you back up your nonsense with facts?

    So you are only showing me you are a complete fool who comes up with something from nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, I saw no indication of admiration in what Laci wrote. The rule of law is the thing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shall not be infringedAugust 27, 2011 at 10:53 PM

    mikeb302000 said...

    Yes, I saw no indication of admiration in what Laci wrote. The rule of law is the thing.


    Then why should he care that they are desisting this historic sight to criminality, on the part of the union, the baldwin-felts and the government?

    Since all three parties were in violation of the law.

    ReplyDelete