Received the Francisque
Wrote in December 1942 in the Vichy journal France, revue de lÉtat nouveau: France, Revue of the New State If France doesnt want to die in the mud, the last French people worthy of this name must declare a merciless war against all who, here or abroad, are preparing to open floodgates against it: Jews, Freemasons, Communists...
Lau Pak Khuan conferred Datuk Seri title by Malaysia Sultan leads unsuccessful bid for Chinese official language status during drafting of Malaysia Constitution
1995: Jury trials abolished
2001: Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy.
The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten Amendments to theconstitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to laydown any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranteesand immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which fromtime immemorial had been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arisingfrom the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into thefundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, whichcontinued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, thefreedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publicationof libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious topublic morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and beararms (article 2) is not infringed by law prohibiting the carrying of concealedweapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (art. 5)does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed toagree, or the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion. . . . Likewise, the self-incrimination clause did not bar a person from beingcompelled to testify against himself if he were immune from prosecution; and theconfrontation clause did not bar the admission of dying declarations.
*157"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of inthe second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To theseprivileges and immunities, whatever they may be--for they are not and cannot befully defined in their entire extent and precise nature--to these should beadded the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendmentsof the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the rightof the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress ofgrievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keepand to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in ahouse without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonablesearches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of awarrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused personto be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to betried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secureagainst excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.
As said by counsel for the appellant: "The freedom of thought, of speech,and of the press; the right to bear arms; exemption from military dictation;security of the person and of the home; the right to speedy and public trial byjury; protection against oppressive bail and cruel punishment,--are, togetherwith exemption from self-crimination, the essential and inseparable features ofEnglish liberty. Each one of these features had been involved in the struggleabove referred to in England within the century and a half immediately precedingthe adoption of the constitution, and the contests were fresh in the memoriesand traditions of the people at that time."
[FN16]. (sustainingdemurrer to prosecution, because "The court is of the opinion that thissection is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitutionof the United States providing, 'A well regulated militia being necessary to thesecurity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shallnot be infringed." ')
In the face of this Supreme Court record, is it accurate for gun controladvocates to claim that the non-individual nature of the Second Amendment is"perhaps the most well-settled" point in all of Americanconstitutional law? The extravagant claim cannot survive a reading of what the Supreme Court hasactually said about the Second Amendment. In the written opinions of theJustices of the United States Supreme Court, the Second Amendment does appear tobe reasonably well-settled--as an individual right. The argument that aparticular Supreme Court opinion's language about the Second Amendment does notreflect what the author "really" thought about the Second Amendmentcannot be used to ignore all these written opinions--unless we presume thatSupreme Court Justices throughout the Republic's history have written thingsabout the Second Amendment that they did not mean. While the Warren Court and the Burger Court offered mixed records on the SecondAmendment, the opinions from the Rehnquist Court (including from the Court's"liberals" Ginsburg and Stevens) are just as clear as were theopinions from the Supreme Court Justices of the nineteenthcentury: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a rightthat belongs to individual American citizens. Although the boundaries of theSecond Amendment have only partially been addressed by Supreme Courtjurisprudence, the core of the Second Amendment is clear: the Second Amendment--like the First, Third,Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments--belongs to "thepeople", not the government.
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who haveduly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a freecountry against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domesticusurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people tokeep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, bothfrom the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means,which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert thegovernment, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizensto keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of theliberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against theusurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these aresuccessful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph overthem. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of awell regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, thatamong the American people there is a growing indifference to any system ofmilitia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, tobe rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armedwithout some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no smalldanger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thusgradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our nationalbill of rights.
If, therefore, the present case turned upon the question, whether a state mightorganize, arm and discipline its own militia, in the absence of, or subordinateto, the regulations of congress, I am certainly not prepared to deny thelegitimacy of such an exercise of authority. It does not seem repugnant in itsnature to the grant of a like paramount authority to congress; and if not, thenit is retained by the states. The fifth [sic] amendment to the constitution,declaring that "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security ofa free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not beinfringed," may not, perhaps, be thought to have any important bearing onthis point. If it have, it confirms and illustrates, rather than impugns, thereasoning already suggested.
How many times have you heard an opponent of gun control cite the "right tokeep and bear arms" without mentioning the introductory phrase "A wellregulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." ? Infact, some years ago, when the NRA placed the words of the Second Amendment nearthe front door of its national headquarters in Washington, D.C., it omitted thatphrase entirely! The NRA's convenient editing is notsurprising; the omitted phrase is the key to understanding that the SecondAmendment guarantees only a limited right that is not violated by laws affectingthe private ownership of firearms.