Americans need the Truth.  But former law professor Rob Natelson’s recent article in The Hill is filled with ad hominems and misstatements. 

Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.

I suggest that if people are going to the Constitution to defend the strikes in Syria or anywhere else, they should read the entire context and not drop relevant, important phrases that the founders placed in the document that would restrict such actions.

In a true federalism – which is what our founders established – there is no final arbiter of constitutional questions; there is no oligarchy to which all other branches of government must bow and which tramples representative government. That is the beauty of checks and balances. That is the beauty of federalism.

“No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;  grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin money;  emit Bills of Credit;  make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;  pass any Bill of Attainder;  ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.”

If society is honest and historically accurate, the only question that has any relevance to the gun control debate is: “Do you trust those in government, now and forever in the future, to not take your life, liberty, or property through the force of government?” If the answer to that question is “No,” the gun control debate is over.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” -Noah Webster, 1787

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. And it’s not about defense of your property. The Second Amendment was written by men who ultimately believed that governments and armies would turn on their own people, as a way to guarantee that that would never happen.

You will find nowhere in Article 1, Section 8, the authority delegated to Congress to tax and spend for education or school firearms training.

If you are like many Americans, you might have assumed that the federal budget process begins with a determination of what activities are lawfully authorized by the United States Constitution along with an analysis of what they will cost.  And then, you might have assumed that these necessary and authorized activities would form the basis around which to organize personnel and material resources. But this assumption would not be accurate.