This does not mean, however, that - let me use the example of a firearm. One has the constitutional right to �keep and bear arms�. This is clear and not open to interpretation by justices. It is well supported in the Federalists and dozens of quotes from leaders at the time the Constitution was framed.

The Second Amendment thus secures the Right of citizens to protect themselves against others who would do them harm, including the US government. By owning and bearing firearms, no other citizen is harmed. Thus, it is not lawful (constitutional) to make any law concerning firearms.

However, if one uses the firearm to steal from another or to injure or kill another, then the rights of the other person have been infringed upon. Thus, the crime can be defined, that it is illegal to use a firearm (or any other weapon, whether a hammer, chisel, screw driver, and so on) to harm another person, whether it be infringing upon his rights of private property or his person.

Then, since a �victim� can be defined, a law defining punishments for such acts may be made.

Next, it must be determined that the victim was harmed, meaning that his rights were infringed upon. After all, it may be that the person shot was in the process of harming the person or another with the firearm. In this case, the person using the weapon to defend himself or a fellow citizen was only defending his rights as a free person (in the common sense, not the legal sense).

Next, if it is determined there is a victim, then it must be proved there was intent to harm. Thus, an accidental shooting, or dropping a hammer and killing another, or a car in an accident resulting in the death of another, are not �crimes�.

The most important fact to consider is whether or not the rights of another have been infringed upon. Without this, there can be no crime, nor can there be a law made specifying, for example, that one cannot keep and bear arms. In fact, since a citizen�s private life is his own as long as he doesn�t interfere with the rights of others, there can be no government intervention or control established concerning any act. That is the intent of the Constitution and its framers.

So, one must ask Justice Scalia, if he is an �originalist�, why has he supported (not working to rescind or repeal is supporting) the 20 thousand plus laws on the books concerning the right to keep and bear arms, not counting the hundreds of hundreds of other unconstitutional laws?

"It may well be stupid, but if it's stupid, pass a law!" he said. "Don't think the originalist interpretation constrains you. To the contrary. My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You want a right to abortion? Create it the way all rights are created in a democracy, pass a law. The death penalty? Pass a law. That's flexibility."

Now, this may be the stupidest, unconstitutional, absolutely dumbbutt and arrogant statements ever made by any human being, alive or dead. Just to give an idea of how stupid, first, we are not a democracy - we are a Republic with sovereign states supreme to the US Government (excepting the very limited Article I, Section 8 authority such as the posting of roads for mail deliver) and with individuals (the sovereign) and their rights supreme to the individual States and the United States Government.

Second, laws may not be passed arbitrarily just because some supreme court justices think the law is okay and �for the common good.� Any bill being considered or bill that has been passed into law (legal) must pass a very simple test - �Does this law infringe upon the rights of even one sovereign citizen?� If it cannot pass this test, then the law (or bill depending on the stage) may not be lawfully passed by Congress or any State or political subdivision of a State.

There is no lawful flexibility in this matter. The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the English Bill of Rights of 1688 reflected in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, the Magna Charta of 1215, American Jurisprudence, and the Ten Commandments secure all rights, whether enumerated in the Constitution or not, and are the very foundations for our nation founded in Liberty.

The rights of the sovereign people cannot be affected regardless of any good intent voiced by others and, most specifically, by a very few people who have been elected, appointed, or hired to fill government positions. They are not given any power whatsoever to infringe upon, waive, or alter in any manner, the unalienable, self-evident rights that all men have been blessed with by their Creator (Preamble, Constitution for the United States of America).

Third, it is not "his" constitution. It is a document of the People of the united States with his function to assure Congress does not pass an unconstitutional law or any law outside its limited jurisdiction. Since he is an officer of the government, the rights secured by the Constitution are not longer secured to him as all government officers are under the plenary control of the US Government. They are part of the corporation that the intent of the Constitution is to control and protect the sovereign citizens from.

And, last. Justice Scalia made this statement above: �Create it the way all rights are created in a democracy, pass a law.� Because of this one statement, the man should be removed from his position. First, as stated above, this is not a democratic country; it is a Republic.

Second, RIGHTS ARE NOT CREATED!!! by legislation - Rights are unalienable and self-evident and created by the Creator of all. Privileges are created by government but those privileges may not be applied to or affect Rights. This means that rights cannot be converted to privilege.

Scalia's statements are those of a tyrant, a man too long in the position he holds. He is no longer a man interesting in protecting the rights of citizens by upholding the Constitution. He is not now a man who is upholding his oath of office. He is a man with what seems to be a god-complex, interested in destruction of the Liberty most of us hold dear, liberty that the man hasn�t any concept of nor any concept of its source or the purpose of the judicial branch of government. His expressed intent is plenary control over the people with government serving as a monarch.

But, of course, this should have been obvious to all from the last presidential �selection�, not election, since presidents are not elected as specified in the Constitution and the 12th Amendment. Funny no one ever brings up this fact in the media.

Well, on my way to try and keep my breakfast down after having to reread this man�s statements.