Herman Cain, the Constitution, and the Resurrection of America

Before last week, I knew three things about Herman Cain: he is black, is the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, and is considering running for president of the United States as a Republican. Before then, nothing; since then, assuming he doesn't walk-back his statement regarding the 2nd Amendment, a paladin of the fundamental principles upon which this Republican form of government was founded.

---

My enlightenment was precipitated by a Jazz Shaw article on Hotair.com. Shaw zeroed in on the ensuing excerpt from an interview CNN's Wolf Blitzer conducted with Cain, but the underlying animus by Shaw was the unveiling of Cain's oddball ideology or his sophomoric inability to operate at the elite political level, and thus misspoke: BLITZER: How about gun control? CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment. BLITZER: So what’s the answer on gun control? CAIN: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. BLITZER: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should… CAIN: Yes BLITZER: Yes? CAIN:Yes. BLITZER: So the answer is yes? CAIN: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision. Blitzer's incredulous reaction can only leave one to believe Blitzer believed he caused Cain to commit self indictment as a maniacal right-winger, and Shaw furtively seized upon it. Shaw displayed and noted at the end of his article a comment by one Doug Mataconis, an attorney who blogs for Pajamas Media:

Now, it’s possible, as Jazz Shaw suggests, that Cain simply misspoke under Blitzer’s rapid fire barrage. The other possibility, though, is that he’s one of those “Constitutional” conservatives who rejects the entire idea that the Federal Bill of Rights should be applied to the states. Ron Paul believes this, and it’s one reason I’m not entirely a fan of his. Is this Cain’s position? Does he believe that, not just the 2nd, but also the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments shouldn’t apply to the states? Some clarification on this issue would be most helpful.

Shaw and Matoconis both agree that Cain must have misspoke from the Blitzer's blitzkrieg questioning. But Matoconis goes further and suggests the possibility that Cain is one of "those people"; he is one of those "Constitutional" conservatives who believe in the original meaning and intent--the sanitary quotation marks imprisoning the word "Constitution" employed by Matoconis are obviously intended to mock originalists. The two pundits believe that if he did not misspeak, he is fundamentally wrong about the 2nd Amendment. Shaw and Matoconis are both disciples of bad case law, and are, indeed, themselves in the wrong. It is this jejune ideology of Shaw, Matoconis, et al. that has been complicit with the systematic extinction of the balance of power between the federal government and the states, and the sanctimoniously injudicious marriage of the fallacious judicial interpretations of the 14th Amendment and the preposterous politically motivated court rulings incorporating the 1st eight amendments. The truth is, Cain actually spoke the Holy Grail of constitutional law, especially if you possess the intellectual honesty and capacity to rebuke the idea that this country's static foundation should shift in accordance with malignant case law for the sanctity of stare decisis. If Cain does not retract his statement, and continues to defend it, he would join a very elite group of people--especially politicians and jurists--that believe in, and will apply and defend the fundamentals upon which this country was founded, and be a great steward of this country's founding document. Herman Cain answered the question presented by Wolf Blitzer regarding the 2nd Amendment exactly as any one of the Founders would have answered. They would have soundly rejected the 14th Amendment at face value, and would have abhorred the cancerous case law incorporating the 1st eight amendments by ideological judicial/political fiat. Cain’s answer is one of the most fundamentally astute answers regarding gun control and state's rights versus the federal government and the 2nd Amendment. The NRA, being an archetypal political body, cannot resist the forces of narcissism, and argued relentlessly against state's rights, and indiscriminately for the right to bear arms regardless of its constitutionality. Herman Cain is not a friend of the NRA in this regard. Two of the most damaging constitutional follies that have done irreversible harm are the federal government's use of the 14th Amendment to incorporate the first eight amendments, and the catastrophic and felonious abuse of the Commerce Clause. Let me explain: There is an opaque and murky demarcation that separates conservatives and constitutionalists. Under no circumstance should conservatism and constitutionalism be considered mutually inclusive--especially regarding the Supreme Court; a conservative court is not a constitutional court and vice versa. They are two different species, but at times display similar characteristics. The very idea of the Supreme Court deciding the fate of a city's laws, within the boundaries of a sovereign state--especially regarding the Bill of Rights, whose only intention was to limit the power of the federal government--would have been preposterous to the men who wrote the Constitution. It was also viewed as preposterous by the authors of the Constitution that a Bill of Rights was even necessary, as all the limits upon the federal government were plainly manifested in the Constitution. The federal government did not have the authority to abridge the rights of the citizens of the 13 sovereign states. The Bill of Rights was added as a dualistic precaution preventing the federal government from infringing upon the rights of the citizens of the states. To understand the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, it is important to understand the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution and their intent, and not the inane ramblings of academia, iniquitous Supreme Court rulings and its debauched case law, and the nefarious transmutational acts of politicians--the very group the Bill of Rights was intended to protect the people from. If the creators of the Constitution had wanted the first eight amendments applied to the states they would have stated it, but if that were the case, the Constitution would never have been ratified, and our country as we know it would not exist. Herman Cain understands this. Every law, every rule, every dictate has a spirit, a reason for being, a purpose. The Constitution of these United States has a very clear spirit, yet through the malice of progressives, the greed of conservatives, and through unadulterated ignorance, our Constitution is engaged in a battle each and every day defending itself and its spirit. Sometimes winning, sometimes losing. Mostly losing. Herman Cain appears to grasp the spirit and original intent. Herman Cain has stunned Wolf Blitzer, befuddled the likes of Jazz Shaw and Doug Mataconis, and probably has the entire faculty of Harvard and Yale law schools writhing on the floor gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands with the remote likelihood that this country may once again be under the auspices of the Constitution rather than politically and ideologically motivated case law. The Supreme Court of these United States, one year ago, while determining whether the 2nd Amendment applied to the states in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, ruled that it in fact applies to the States under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. This Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has been harshly criticized for being too conservative a court--and justifiably so. The court is far too conservative as witnessed by the McDonald ruling. The court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. Considering that all of the first eight amendments had been previously incorporated, excepting the 2nd and parts of the 4th Amendments, by politically motivated courts in the past, it would be fair to surmise the members of this court were merely servants of stare decisis and bad case law. They ruled as a conservative court would, but not as a constitutionalist court would. This court had the opportunity to eradicate thousands of spurious federal laws and reset the limits of the power of the federal government over the states back to the intended balance. Herman Cain understands this. The 4th Amendment never intended to incorporate the first eight amendments, but ideological politicians parading around as justices started chipping away at the foundation with the 1st Amendment in the 1920s, and again stare decisis has taken the final chip out of this country's fundamental governing document that spared the states from the oppressive federal government we have today. We are sovereign citizens of sovereign states under the very limited supremacy of the federal government according to the 10th and 11th Amendments, and by the dictate of the creators of this country. The very intention of the Constitution was to protect the citizens of the states from a ruling such as McDonald v. Chicago. Herman Cain understands this. So now I know five things about Herman Cain: he is black, is the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, is running for president, is not a conservative but a constitutionalist, and of all the conservatives trying to achieve the nomination Cain is the one who would have the support of the founders of this country.