Log in

from our SCOPE membership

  • 03/04/2021 8:31 PM | Anonymous

    One Man One Vote  by Tom Reynolds

    SCOPE previously wrote about New York counties seceding from NY and joining Pennsylvania.  Another alternative solution (besides Divide NY and the status quo) might be to overturn the Warren Court’s wrongful ruling that established the “one man one vote” principle.    

    The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) under Chief Justice Earl Warren was one of the most liberal SCOTUS the USA has ever had – and, hopefully, ever will.  Many of the divisive issues we face today are directly related to rulings during Warren’s reign. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II accused the Warren Court of repeatedly amending the Constitution through its opinions, rather than waiting for the lawful amendment process

    One of the Warren Court’s worst decisions was Reynolds v Sims, which ignored the Constitution in order to remove political power from conservative rural areas and give it to liberal cities; it’s known as “one man one vote”.  

    •  In 1946, before Warren’s appointment to SCOTUS, in Colegrove v. Green the court continued its long-standing position that legislative apportionment was a “political thicket” into which the judiciary should not intrude.  
    •  In 1962, in Baker v. Carr, the Warren Court ignored the court’s precedent and forced the Tennessee legislature to reapportion itself on the basis of population.
    •  In 1964, citing the Baker case as a precedent, the Warren Court held in ReynoldsSims that both houses of bicameral legislatures had to be apportioned according to population. This is known as “one man one vote”
    • The power to make laws is vested in our elected representatives in the House and Senate, not in a vote by the people (Article I Section 1). And each state has two Senators, no matter what the population (Article 1 Section 3 and Amendment XVII).
    • One person, the President, has the executive power to run the government and enforce laws (Article II Section I).
    • The President is elected by the Electoral College, where each state has the number of votes equal to its total number of Representatives and Senators (Article II Section I).  Under states’ laws, almost all states allocate their Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis, not a percentage of votes. 
    • In case no one gets a majority of the electoral votes, the decision is made by the House of Representatives where each state has only one vote for President, no matter what the population. (Amendment XII)
    • Only the House of Representatives is based on population and it is not truly “one man one vote”.  The smallest state gets at least one vote (Article I Section 2).  Six states are below the average representation.
    • Congress passed the law that sets the number of SCOTUS judges at nine and there is no requirement for equal representation throughout the USA.
    • As a result of Reynolds v Sims, virtually every state legislature was reapportioned, ultimately causing the political power to shift from rural to urban areas.

    Every issue must be viewed in context; statements can mean very different things when taken out of context.  The US Constitution set up the rules and overall framework for how the federal government would operate, but it also had a second purpose; to protect ”We the people” from the tyranny of the majority.  Every part of the Constitution should be interpreted within the context of protecting “We the people” from the tyranny of the majority.  “One man one vote” goes against that principle.

    The Constitution has many examples that contradict “one man one vote: 

    • One person, the President, has the executive power to run the government and enforce laws (Article II Section I).

    • The President is elected by the Electoral College, where each state has the number of votes equal to its total number of Representatives and Senators (Article II Section I).  Under states’ laws, almost all states allocate their Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis, not a percentage of votes. 

    • In case no one gets a majority of the electoral votes, the decision is made by the House of Representatives where each state has only one vote for President, no matter what the population. (Amendment XII)

    • Only the House of Representatives is based on population and it is not truly “one man one vote”.  The smallest state gets at least one vote (Article I Section 2). Six states are below the average representation.

    • Congress passed the law that sets the number of SCOTUS judges at nine and there is no requirement for equal representation throughout the USA.

    • Why is it important to show that our Constitution is not in any way based on one man one vote?  Currently, New York has a bicameral (two house) legislature where both houses are based on an equal percentage of the population.  What if, instead of “one man one vote”, the NY State Senate was apportioned by each county having one Senator, no matter what the population was of the county?  Rural counties would then have a voice that is currently denied them because of NY City’s overwhelming population.  In NY State, the principle of “one man one vote” effectively means that people in rural counties have no vote.  Rural counties are subject to the tyranny of the majority.

    Stare decisis is a legal principle where courts rarely go against principles established in previous rulings.  (Unless of course you are a liberal court, then the only principle that matters is your current political position.)  Liberals respect stare decisis only when it works in their favor.  The Warren Court frequently ignored Stare Decisis.  Unfortunately, Stare Decisis also protects bad rulings as we have seen with “one man one vote”.

    Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate (Article 2 Section 2); they are not elected.  (Another example that goes against “one man one vote”.)  2nd Amendment defenders face an extremely grave time after Democrats won both races in Georgia.  The Senate could run rampant in approving far left judges who will make political rulings, such as the Warren Court made, instead of judgments based on the Constitution.  Elections have consequences and we need to ensure that future Presidents and Senates only appoint conservative judges who believe in the rule of law. 

    Perhaps, someday, we will have judges who recognize that “one man one vote” was another constitutional aberration of the Warren Court and needs to be overturned.  That would overcome the tyranny of the majority that is now the rule of law in NY State and give gun owners and Upstate NY a voice in their government that is currently denied.

  • 03/03/2021 5:30 PM | Anonymous

    Secession  by Tom Reynolds

    There is a movement to divide New York State into three “sub-states” in order to free most of the state from the oppression of rule by NY City liberals, who hate the 2nd Amendment.  There are other possible approaches, too.

    Deep Blue states are often pictured as being completely made up of left-wing Democrats instead of just being dominated by left wing Democrats.  As in New York State and others, there tends to be a sizable portion of the state that believes in traditional conservative American / non-liberal values, such as the right to “keep and bear arms”.  Oregon is one such state with that split personality.

    Oregon’s population is centered along the northwest coast.  The rest of the state is primarily rural and the large population of urban areas along the coast dominate Oregon’s politics.  Of course, those dominant population centers are heavily liberal Democrat, which sounds a lot like New York State.  Several counties in southern and western Oregon have grown tired of the liberal dominated status quo and are trying to do something about it; they have started a movement to secede from Oregon and join Idaho.  Idaho’s values more closely align with those of the seceding counties. 

    Changing states would be a very technical process – and very political.  The counties would have to vote for the change as well as the legislatures of both Oregon and Idaho and the federal legislatures in D.C.  And politicians have been known to vote for their own benefit rather than their constituents’ benefit. 

    Which raises an interesting possibility in New York State.  The southern tier counties from Tioga to Chautauqua (and maybe Broome) would seem to be prime candidates to move from New York to Pennsylvania.  There are probably several counties north of them, in the Finger Lakes region in particular, that might also join in such a movement.  What might be some of the issues?

    Psychologically, it might be difficult for some people to think of changing their address from NY to PA.  Disturbing the status quo is, for some people, disturbing.

    Pennsylvania is not as reliably conservative as Idaho and it has heavily Democrat population centers at both ends of the state.  Those centers would not like seeing their power diminished by conservative voters joining Pennsylvania.

    Conservative counties in NY that are not leaving might not want to see other conservative counties leave.  It would leave them even more under the thumb of NY City. 

    It would diminish NY’s overall representation in Congress and increase Pennsylvania’s but probably not, of itself, change the overall breakdown between Republicans and Democrats in the House.  Pennsylvania’s one Democrat Senator would not like it. 

    New York is a reliably deep blue state while Pennsylvania is a battleground state.  After this move, New York would be virtually ignored in Presidential elections while Pennsylvania would get even more attention – and more federal “goodies” to entice its vote.

    Hydro fracking is legal In Pennsylvania and most of these NY counties are sitting on an ocean of natural gas.  The economies of these counties would jump after this move and Pennsylvania would see a boost in its tax revenues.  There would be no loss in revenue to NY since there is no revenue from hydrofracking. 

    Gun owners will love Pennsylvania’s gun laws as compared to NY’s. 

    The Republican Party controls both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature, but not as overwhelmingly as the Democrats control New York.  This move would probably add to the Republican majority.  Pennsylvania’s governor is a Democrat so they have split government. 

    Grocery stores in Pennsylvania still use plastic bags.  (That got my vote!)

    In summary, there is an alternative besides Divide NY and the status quo.  Each of you must decide which, if any, you prefer and if it has a greater possibility of succeeding.  But the important thing to remember is that we have possibilities.

    Tomorrow, we will discuss another alternative.

  • 03/02/2021 5:41 PM | Anonymous

    Anti 2A bills in New York State  by Tom Reynolds

    Every year, legislators draft bills that have little or no chance of becoming laws, but the legislator wants to send a message to some part of their voting constituency.  In the past, SCOPE has not been concerned about many past proposed bills but since the Democrats control both houses of the legislature and the governorship, we cannot take anything for granted.  We are seeing at both the national and state level how radical some politicians have become and the NY legislatures are no exceptions.

    The anti-2nd Amendment politicians in NY State have been busy putting forth bills.  So many, that we have not had a chance to write in detail about many of them.  However, you need to know what is “out there”, even if only a summary.

    Below is a list of bills in the New York Senate and Assembly.  An “A” in the bill number indicates an Assembly bill and an “S” indicates a Senate bill.  Since a bill must pass in both the Senate and Assembly, those with both an “A” and an “S” are the most dangerous since “companion” bills have been proposed in both houses.  These are shown in the first group. 

    The second group (with only an “A”) are Assembly only bills and the third group (with only an “S”) are Senate only bills.  These may eventually get a companion bill but not as of this writing. 

    Bills go through committees and we show you which committees to which the bills are currently referred.  There is also a short description of each bill under the bill number. 

    SCOPE encourages you to contact your legislators about those bills with both an “A” and “S”.  (And others if you are so motivated.)

  • 02/25/2021 12:11 PM | Anonymous

    Anti 2A companies  by Tom Reynolds

    The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) did a study of businesses, or their CEO’s, that back gun control initiatives or have anti firearm policies.  SCOPE thought you might be interested in that list.  We are not calling for a boycott, just informing members of where their purchasing dollars may be going.

    CCRKBA is a west coast based organization that works to defend 2A.  CCRKBA only published the most general description of the criteria for being included on the list.  An internet search did not reveal any negative stories about the list.  SCOPE cannot verify the accuracy of the businesses on the list but a spot check did reveal some anti-gun bias in those companies we checked.  We also spot checked the list against another anti-gun list and the companies checked were on both lists.  We also recognized some of the larger companies that have a known anti 2A history.  What we suggest is that, if you do business with any of the companies on this list, you research further their 2A activities and then decide for yourself.

    Also remember that these seem to be American companies.  Many companies that are not on the list buy products from China and China is definitely NOT in favor of Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

    20/20 Vision
    A&M Records
    Alphabet, Inc.
    Amalgamated Bank
    AMC Theatres
    AOL / Time Warner
    Ariel Investments LLC
    Bad Robot
    Bain Capital
    Bank of America
    Beyond Meat
    Bloomberg LP
    Brookfield Property
    Burger King
    Catch & Release
    Cerebras Systems
    Circle Medical
    Color Genomics
    Conde Nast
    Credit Karma
    Delta Airlines
    DICK’S Sporting Goods
    Disney Company
    Doxel, Inc.
    Elektra Labs
    Emerson Collective
    Full Picture
    Gap, Inc.
    Gateway Computers

    Goat Group
    Graphic Packaging
    Group Nine Media
    Hallmark Cards
    Hard Rock Cafe
    Havas Group
    Hint, Inc.
    Horizon Media
    Impossible Foods
    Jumbo Privacy
    Kabbage Inc.Kadena

    Levi Strauss 
    Lucent Technologies
    Modern Fertility
    MongoDB Inc.
    NBC Universal
    NCR Corp.
    Oaktree Capital
    Oberndorf Enterprises
    Omnicom Group
    Panera Bread
    Plato Design

    Gap Inc.
    Gateway Computers
    Goat Group
    Graphic Packaging
    Group Nine Media

    Progressive Insurance
    Publicis Groupe

    Progressive Insurance
    Publicis Groupe
    Ribbon Health
    Royal Caribbean Cruises
    RXR Realty
    Sara Lee
    Shoptiques Inc.
    Showtime Cable Network
    Shutterstock Inc.
    Sidewalk Labs
    Small Door
    Snapdocs, Inc.
    Southwestern Bell
    Square and Twitter
    Standard Bots
    Sundia Corporation
    Sunlight Health
    SV Angel
    Thisopenspace inc.
    Thrive Capital
    Thrive Global
    ThunderCore Inc.
    Uniform Teeth
    Viosera Therapeutics
    Virtual Kitchen
    WPP, inc.
    Y Combinator
    Yum Brands

  • 02/23/2021 11:08 AM | Anonymous

    The Smartest Person in the Room  by Tom Reynolds

    What should we look for in political leaders?  Obviously, we want to vote for people who share our beliefs and values.  Unfortunately, no matter what you believe, probably half the country does not share your values.  How much should the candidate’s background affect your vote; some believe that an extensive background in government is good while others see it as a negative.  An Ivy League education seems to be in vogue but one writer spoke for millions of us when he said he, “…would rather be ruled by the first 200 people in the Boston telephone book that the Harvard faculty”.  We could go on but it should be apparent that there is wide disagreement on what we want in our politicians.  But there are some things upon which we should all agree and we only have to look at yesterday’s birthday to see who set that standard.

    Historians tend to downplay George Washington’s intelligence because he did not have much formal education and he was surrounded by some other brilliant founders: Alexander Hamilton; Thomas Jefferson; John Marshall; to name a few.  But when decisions needed to be made, the person most trusted to make the right decision was George Washington.

    So, was Washington really the smartest guy in the room or was it something else that made him special?

    Certainly, intelligence is a factor, but there are lots of intelligent people.  Should we have political candidates take an IQ test and elect the highest scorer?  Adolph Hitler had a photographic memory and Napoleon Bonaparte was noted for his high intelligence.  Anyone want them for a President? 

    What one does with their intelligence is more important.  What we should look for and demand in leadership is wisdom.

    The dictionary describes wisdom as, “The soundness of action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge and good judgment”.   I would only amend that to say “the soundness of decision AND action”; sound decisions without proper follow up rarely succeed.  And bad decisions often get implemented to the detriment of society.  Washington made good decisions and then implemented them.

    Wisdom is learned and not gifted at birth.  Washington was too ambitious as a young man but learned from his experiences and grew into wisdom.  By the time he emerged on center stage in 1775, he was ready.  That doesn’t mean he did not make mistakes – he did – but he didn’t make many.  For 22 years, from 1775 until 1797, he was at the center of leadership in America and faced more decisions of grave consequence than any other American in history.  No one else is even close.  He did not miss on many.

    There are questions we should ask ourselves when deciding on our vote.  How many people look at candidates for office and ask, “Is this someone I want making life and death decisions?  Do they have the wisdom needed to make those decisions?”  If you can’t trust them with life and death decisions, should you trust them with the everyday decisions? 

    We all recognize that U.S. Presidents send people off to war but often forget that Congress has to directly or indirectly approve that action; both Presidents and Congress make decisions that kill people and their implementation of those decisions dictate the length of the killing and the carnage involved.  Judges get nominated by the President and governors; judges make decisions over life and death, freedom or imprisonment.  When a pandemic or natural disaster hits, governors and mayors and county executives make life and death decisions; how many voters imagined a governor would be deciding the fate of nursing home residents? 

    Washington was known for his emotions and temper but he kept them under control and let wisdom, not emotions, lead him to decisions.  Within a few years of Washington taking command of the Continental Army, it was obvious that he was the right man to make life and death decisions.

    Another factor is the candidates’ lust for power.  Ambition is okay but ambition without ethics is a disaster.  Washington was one of the few people in world history to give up power willingly and he is the only one to give it up twice!  He didn’t need power to be complete but he was willing to assume power, when called by his country.  Beware of legislators hanging on to power in their 80’s and 90’s, their life is centered on personal power and not society’s needs.  

    When a thirty-something congressperson decides they are qualified to be President, we should only laugh; they may have the right politics but the wisdom…doubtful.  Making good speeches is not wisdom.

    It’s unfair to compare any potential political leader to Washington.  He was almost unique in the history of the world.  But his attributes are a good benchmark for comparison, while understanding that everyone will fall somewhat short.  Being the smartest person in the room is more than memorization and the ability to speak.  Wisdom and ethical ambition need to be present.

    Happy late birthday, George.  And thanks for all you did.

  • 02/19/2021 10:26 AM | Anonymous

    Gun Control Evolution of Biden and the Dems  by Don Smith, Wayne County chapter Chairman

    Early in his career Joe Biden said gun regulation was ineffective.  Biden and many Senate Democrats supported the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act [FOPA] of 1986, which curtailed government abuse, recognized that many gun control laws were ineffective and wanted laws to be aimed at criminals rather than law-abiding citizens.  This bill was made necessary because the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms used a previous strict Gun Control Act to impede lawful gun ownership. 

    The Senate Congressional Record, July 9,1985 lays out the reasons for FOPA (p.18158):

    • “The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act [FOPA] was conceived in the notion that law enforcement needed to be directed at the real criminal....” (emphasis added.)

    • “The sponsors and proponents of the Gun Control Act of 1968 claimed that it would significantly reduce the rate of crime, particularly crimes involving the use of firearms. It has not. Instead, between 1967 and 1982, the national homicide and handgun-homicide rates rose 50 percent, while robbery rates and robberies involving the use of firearms have nearly tripled.”(emphasis added.)

    •  “It is important that we who are in the Senate in 1985 pause to remember why the founders of our country viewed the right to own guns as fundamental. Of course, they knew the importance of firearms for hunting-not just for sport but for suppling food for the family. They also knew that, in a largely frontier society, guns were vital for self-defense against common criminals who were a constant threat to the safety and survival of law-abiding citizens.” (emphasis added.)

    •  “Today, these same arguments are presented in support of preserving the rights of gun ownership, and properly so as they are valid arguments. However, for the Founding Fathers, neither of these arguments was the overriding reason in favor of an armed citizenry. For them, the most important reason for gun ownership was political – that is, armed citizens constituted an effective hedge against tyrants." (emphasis added.)

    Biden then flip-flopped in the late 1980s, with legislative efforts falsely claiming to address violent crime. He succeeded in 1994 with “the crime bill” passed by Congress. It banned large capacity magazines and “assault” weapons” (more properly called “Modern Sporting Rifles”).  It automatically expired in 2004 without a renewal vote.

    Then-Rep. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, said in a statement that the ban "provided only the illusion of reducing gun violence, but it did real damage to our liberties."

              Sunday, February 14, 2021, marked three years since a former student opened fire on the campus of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, killing 17 people and injuring 15 others. In a statement on February 14, 2021, President Biden:

    •     Hinted he would take executive action to attack guns
    •     Urged Congress to step up the pace of authoring anti-gun legislation
    •     And publicly called for a gun registry, as well as gun & magazine ban

        Biden issued the following statement on February 15, 2021:

              “This administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our street. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.”

              After the Parkland shooting, many students and family members called for stricter gun control laws. But not all of them. One of the exceptions was Andrew Pollack whose daughter Meadow was killed inside the school. He claimed the school’s liberal policies on student discipline had contributed to his daughter’s death.

         According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Pollack said:

    •  “After my daughter’s murder, the media didn’t seem interested in the facts. So, I found them myself. I learned that gun control laws didn’t fail my daughter. People did.”  Pollack blamed “far-left Democrats in our school district” for adopting insufficiently harsh disciplinary measures to catch previous red flags about the gunman, a troubled former student.

    • “I was just fine with the old approach to discipline and safety — it was called discipline and safety,” Pollack said, criticizing the school’s “restorative justice” policy. “But the Obama-Biden administration took Parkland’s bad policies and forced them into schools across America.” He praised President Trump for ending support for those policies and told listeners, “Their children’s safety depended on Trump being reelected.”     

    “Pollack was angered by the media’s close focus on gun policy rather than on other factors leading up to the shooting.”

    Pollack was also critical of the student activists who survived the massacre and then called for tighter gun control policies: “They just got famous off the death of these kids,” Pollack told The Times in 2019. “Their agenda was to get famous and spew more of their liberalism ways without looking at the facts.”

    Reference Link:

    Many of the “facts” referred to by Pollack can be found at the following reference link:

  • 02/17/2021 11:00 AM | Anonymous
    NY A02175/S00065: Prohibiting the sale of Ammunition

    Links to the Assembly & Senate full-text pages:  A02175 | S00065

    Use the links below to contact your NYS Assembly Rep and your Senator:
    NYS Assembly Member Directory | NYS Senate Member Directory

  • 02/15/2021 11:45 AM | Anonymous

    SCOPE Reply to Opinion Piece and Biden  by Tom Reynolds

    Last week’s Finger Lakes Times contained an opinion piece by a representative of the League of Women Voters.  It listed their priorities and one of them was “Comprehensive Gun Reform”. 

    On Valentine’s Day, President Biden sent a love letter to gun grabbers that repeated the usual radical plans to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

    SCOPE responded to the opinion piece, in 500 words below, and it would also apply to Biden’s latest misadventure.

    Speaking for the League of Women Voters, Christine Hoffman stated that a League priority was to “End gun violence in America”.  SCOPE is a 2nd Amendment defense organization and would agree with the goal but not with the method she suggests.  Most existing and proposed gun control laws affect only law-abiding citizens, who are not the ones committing gun violence.  Until someone figures out how to get criminals to obey the law, their suggestion is equivalent to selling your car to stop your neighbor’s drunk driving.

    Ms. Hoffman stated, “the nation needs and demands comprehensive gun reform”.  What nation?  She can’t be referring to the America that, in 2020, purchased record numbers of guns or for the record number of women who bought guns. They are hardly “demanding” more gun control.

    Movies may romanticize 110 pound actresses beating up linebacker-size guys, but that is fantasy.  Women are at a significant physical strength disadvantage in assaults and carrying a firearm reduces or eliminates that disadvantage.   

    Laws are meant to be enforced.  Yet, enacted laws against rioting, looting and arson in cities such as Seattle, Portland and San Francisco -and others - were not enforced. This led to more riots, arson and killing.  The same applies to guns.  There are already enough laws against the criminal use of guns; the problem is lack of enforcement.  We don’t need more laws that only impact law abiding citizens. 

    In addition to allowing rioting to continue, NY State began releasing criminals without bail in 2020.  Assemblyman William Barclay recently posted some statistics for that year: Buffalo homicides up 36%; NY City homicides up 45%; Rochester homicides up 59%; Syracuse homicides up 55%.  Is it sensible to make it more difficult for people to defend themselves in a time of rising violent crime?

    Ms. Hoffman repeats a common refrain about banning “Assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.  There was a nationwide ban from 1994 to 2004; it was not renewed as it was ineffective.  The FBI’s statistics on murders in 2019 further prove this point: In NY State there was only 3 murders by rifles but 119 by knives and other cutting instruments and 44 by hands and fists.  Attacking “Assault weapons” may be good propaganda but they are not the problem.  

    If all legal gun sales in the USA were stopped, would that end gun violence?  President Biden has opened our borders.  If sales were stopped in the U.S., might Mexican drug cartels take advantage of open borders to expand their smuggling operations to meet criminals’ demand for guns?  Is this addressed under the LWV’s fifth priority, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”?

    Defensive gun uses far outnumber criminal gun use.  Examples of successful defensive gun use are easy to research on-line. 

    When police are ten minutes away, a gun provides protection at 1500 feet per second.  A gun’s presence, alone, may deter criminals.

    Ms. Hoffman she describes her recommendations as “common sense”.  As my dad would say, “sayin’ it don’t make it so”.

  • 02/12/2021 11:03 AM | Anonymous

    Some Impeachment Statistics  by Tom Reynolds

    The 2nd Amendment protection to “keep and bear arms” is a key part of the Constitution.  But it’s more than just the Constitution that has made America great and held us together as a nation.  Our values, beliefs and traditions were as binding as the Constitution…until lately. One tradition, that the House and Senate used to believe in, was that the will of the voters must be respected and not overturned.  Because of that, Congress rarely took meaningful action to remove elected officials.  The statistics on impeachments, removals and non-seating reinforce that the will of the voters used to be respected.

    In the entire history of the U.S.A., only one Senator and no Congresspersons have ever been impeached.  (The Senator was impeached in 1797, for Treason, but he was expelled before impeachment finished.)

    Four Presidential impeachments have happened, including two to the same President.  Another President would probably have been impeached but he resigned first.

    The House and Senate have other means of dealing with errant legislators that are similar to impeachment:

    Five Congresspersons have been expelled, but three of those five were in 1861, for siding with the Confederacy.  The other two had to be convicted of felonies in courts of law before being expelled.

    Fifteen Senators have been expelled, but fourteen of those were in 1861-2, for siding with the Confederacy.  The fifteenth was the one impeached in 1797 for treason, but expelled first.  Delete the Civil War and only two Congresspersons and one Senator have ever been expelled in the history of the USA.

    The House has refused to seat four elected Congresspersons, including the same person twice. (He opposed WW1 but was elected again and was not seated, again.)

    The Senate has never refused to seat a Senator.

    Only two Congresspersons have ever been formally threatened with expulsion but never expelled.  One beat another Congressman with a cane and resigned before expulsion (but he was subsequently reelected and seated).  The second one resigned after the House ethics committee recommended his expulsion for bribery.

    Seventeen other Senators have been formally threatened with expulsion but not expelled: Six resigned; nine were not expelled; one died; and one’s term expired.

    Only thirty times in American history (excluding the Civil War) has Congress tried to impeach, expel or exclude legislators or Presidents. Of those, only sixteen were either convicted or resigned.  Does this demonstrate the high moral and ethical standards of our elected officials?  Or does it reflect the American tradition that the will of the voters is not to be overturned by the legislature except in extreme and rare circumstances?  That was the tradition until Pelosi became House Speaker.

    Two of the four Presidential impeachments happened under Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker.  Think about that for a moment; in the history of the U.S.A, half of all Presidential impeachments have happened under Pelosi and it was the same President.  And if preliminary signs hold true, he will be acquitted both times.

    There can be no doubt that the primary Democrat purpose behind this latest impeachment is to prevent Donald Trump from running again for President in 2024.  They believe that their political beliefs allow them to overturn even the potential will of the voters.    

    Nancy Pelosi claims to be a devout Catholic but, apparently, she has never heard of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.  Senate Democrats forgot that rule, when they were in the Senate majority, when they did away with the filibuster for most presidential appointments.  Four years later, Republicans had regained the Senate majority and “did unto them”; the Republicans expanded the no-filibuster rule to include Supreme Court nominees.  This allowed them to approve three, pro-2A, Trump nominees.  Should Republicans regain control of the House (and Senate) in 2022, will we see a new round of “do unto them” impeachments?  Apparently, the Golden Rule has an addendum, “What goes around comes around”.

    There can be no doubt that Pelosi, Schumer and their cronies are anti 2nd Amendment.  This should serve as a warning to all gun owners that nothing will stand in their way; certainly not the constitutional provision that Americans have the right to, “keep and bear arms” and not American traditions, beliefs and values. Pelosi and company seem intent on doing away with the Constitution, as it was written, and its associated values.  Freedom of Speech and the right to “Keep and bear arms” are at the top of their list.  Beware of those who see the Bill of Rights as only a piece of paper and disparage the beliefs that made us great. 

    Note: To fill out the impeachment list: fourteen Federal Judges and one Supreme Court Judge and one Cabinet Secretary have also been impeached.

  • 02/10/2021 6:35 PM | Anonymous

    New York State Senate Bill S-1605 would require a mental health evaluation, every time, before a firearm could be purchased, disposed of or transferred. This would turn the 2nd Amendment from a right to a permission, at the discretion of unelected appointees.

    This link will go to the full-text page for the bill:  S1605

A 2nd Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

SCOPE is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization.

{ Site Design & Development By Motorhead Digital }

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software