Legislative History Form: Fill & Download for Free

Since the same frankly idiotic questions keep showing up in only very slightly different forms, I’m going to save time and trouble by simply cutting and pasting answers, with minor mods as needed.We have the right to keep and bear arms because a) we recognize a natural right of self defense, with a penumbra from that of a right to the means of self defense, while b) the Second Amendment to the US constitution forbids the government from attempting to infringe that right, and c) the Fourteenth Amendment extends that to the states. In order to begin to change this, the constitution must be amended. This is a deliberately difficult process, and one that requires overwhelming consensus. That consensus does not exist.Now, you may claim that the Second Amendment doesn’t cover AR-15s, aka “Evil Black Rifles, aka “assault weapons.” Let’s just cut that silly line off at the knees:That argument, that the second amendment covers only weapons classes extant at the time, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, in Heller, with: “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.”Consider a couple of the corollaries: “Only unamplified speech, or written material printed by hand or on a hand powered press, is protected by the First Amendment. Radio, television, modern books, and the internet may all be censored at will.” Likewise, “Only those religions actively present and followed by white people in the original 13 colonies are protected by the First Amendment.” See? Frivilous. Absurd.You also need to look at the legislative history of the Bill of Rights. It includes the Declaration and the Revolution, so called. They also read as a litany of what we saw as abuses by the Crown or Parliament (though, in actuality, the abuses more often arose from the heavy handed British Army). And among those? Do you know how the revolution actually began? The Brits went for some cannon believed to be held in private hands (they were, too) in the vicinity of Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. When they did, we fought. We would not be disarmed.In other words, yes, the Second Amendment is about preserving the means of rebellion in the citizens’ hands, though not really in the hope of rebellion, so much as in the expectation that the government, faced with a hundred million armed citizens and a defense establishment that would be of dubious loyalty if turned against those citizens, will back down before pushing matters to that extent.Of course, if they don’t take the hint…You can find dispersion of power all through our system. We not only split legislative power among two houses, and all government power between three branches, we also split sovereignty between the feds and the states, while splitting the power to do mass violence between the fed, the state national guards, the state defense forces, where they exist, and the private citizenry.

THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE “ HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF”In the 2013 Delhi Legislative Assembly election BJP got 31 seat but AAP with 28 seat were invited to form the government as they were supported by INC who got 8 seatIn the 2002 Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly election JKNC got 28 but PDP with 16 seat were invited to form the government as they were supported by INC who got 20 seat and other party like JKNPPIn 2005 Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election BJP got 30 seat but JMM with 17 seat were invited to form the government

Do the citizens of the United States own their citizenship? If not, can you explain why not?Q. Why are people getting rid of their US citizenship? A. It's because of the "10 Commandments of U.S. Citizenship" in a #FATCA and #FBAR world by John Richardson https://t.co/cbjEJ91Ijw— John Richardson - Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) January 3, 2018Citizenship is not personal or real property that can be sold or otherwise transferred.Although U.S. citizenship is neither personal nor real property, the U.S. Government does impose income taxes on citizenship. The U.S. is one of only two countries in the world that imposes income taxes based on only citizenship.Although perhaps, not legal ownership (in the sense of owning property), Justice Black in the 1967 decision of Afroyim v. Rusk ruled that the U.S. Government cannot strip a person who acquires U.S. citizenship through birth or naturalization of his citizenship, without the consent of the citizen. In this sense (it cannot be taken from him), citizenship is owned by the citizen.A person who acquires U.S. citizenship through birth outside the United States (not by birth or naturalization) can be stripped of his citizenship by the U.S. government.Any U.S. citizen is free to dispose of his U.S. citizenship through various forms of relinquishment including renunciation. So, a U.S. citizen owns his citizenship and he can divest himself of it.Interestingly because of FATCA and various aspects of U.S. citizenship-based taxation many U.S. citizens living outside the United States are now feeling forced to renounce their U.S. citizenship in order to survive.Are tax policies that force people to renounce U.S. citizenship constitutional? Here is the final paragraph of Justice Black’s judgment in Afroyim v. Rusk: Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)“Because the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, and of the expatriation proposals which preceded and followed it, like most other legislative history, contains many statements from which conflicting inferences can be drawn, our holding might be unwarranted if it rested entirely or principally upon that legislative history. But it does not. Our holding, we think, is the only one that can stand in view of the language and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, and our construction of that Amendment, we believe, comports more nearly than Perez with the principles of liberty and equal justice to all that the entire Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to guarantee. Citizenship is no light trifle to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so under the name of one of its general or implied grants of power. In some instances, loss of citizenship can mean that a man is left without the protection of citizenship in any country in the world -- as a man without a country. Citizenship in this Nation is a part of a cooperative affair. Its citizenry is the country, and the country is its citizenry. The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.”Conclusion: I think that a person’s right to NOT be stripped of his U.S. citizenship does make U.S. citizenship akin to an interest that is analagous to ownership. I would say: a U.S. citizenship owns his citizenship and is free to divest himself of it but he cannot transfer it to another person.