Thus always to tyrants
Attributed to Brutus at the time of Julius Caesar’s assassination, and to John Wilkes Booth at the time of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination; whether it was actually said at either of these events is disputed. Shorter version from originalsic semper evello mortem tyrannis |”thus always death will come to tyrants”|. State motto of Virginia, adopted in 1776.
The state motto of Virginia is “Sic Semper Tyrannis,” meaning “Thus Always to Tyrants.” The motto was adopted in 1776, with the words symbolizing victory over tyranny. Virginia’s state motto was recommended by George Mason to be incorporated into the Seal of Virginia during the 1776 Virginia Convention. Even though the words are Latin, the exact origins are unknown, unlike the mottoes of most states in the US.
One very unique factor of the state motto of Virginia is that it is thoroughly incorporated into the state seal. The state seal is circular, with a garland of flowers forming an inner circle. Within this circle, two figures actually act out the meaning of the state motto. The female image represents the Roman figure, Virtus, which is a figure of peace. The male figure represents Tyranny, who lies at the foot of Virtus. Virtus is shown holding a long spear, and the whole impression is that of a battle that has already been won.
Virginia’s Democratic politicians appear to be ready to drive the state into a period of massive civil unrest with no regard for citizens’ wishes, but conservatives in the commonwealth will not be stripped of their rights without a fight.
In the face of expected wide-reaching bans on so-called assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other arms protected under the 2nd Amendment, Virginians are standing up to Democratic tyranny.
Even now, 79 percent of Virginia’s counties have enacted some form of 2nd Amendment sanctuary laws, and that number is only expected to grow.
It’s safe to say opposition to proposed anti-gun laws is widespread.
Despite this, the state’s Democratic leaders continue to threaten the use of force to bring its residents to heel.
A major in the Marine Corps reserves took an opportunity during a Dec. 3 meeting to warn the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County about trouble on the horizon.
Ben Joseph Woods spoke about his time in the military, his federal law enforcement career and his fears about where politicians are taking Virginia.
“I work plainclothes law enforcement,” Woods said. “I walk around without a uniform, people don’t see my badge, people don’t see my gun, and I can tell you: People are angry.” (Emphasis added)
Woods said that the situation in Virginia is becoming so dangerous that he is close to moving his own wife and unborn child out of the state.
“The reason is because my fellow law enforcement officers I’ve heard on more than one occasion tell me they would not enforce these bills regardless of whether they believe in them ideologically,” Woods said, “because they believe that there are so many people angry — in gun shops, gun shows, at bars we’ve heard it now — people talking about tarring and feathering politicians in a less-than-joking manner.”
As Woods mentioned politicians themselves could very well be in danger because of their decisions, several rebel yells broke out as the crowd cheered him on.
There have been calls from conservatives and Libertarians for a convention of the states to address this. It is my belief that this is a mistake.
I have been told that the Chinese characters for “opportunity” and “danger” are the same.
The idea of a “convention of the states” is, similarly, both an opportunity and a danger.
US Constitution Article V states; “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Note the following small detail: the President is not a part of the amendment process. So what difference does it make when the President says that he or she does not like a particular proposed amendment, and they will not support it?
None.
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
What is troubling is that the political process is controlled by the political parties and not the electorate. Therefore, it is most likely that the form and wording of amendments would be controlled by the same folks who are currently in charge. NOT a comforting thought.
Also, once a convention of the states IS called there is no guarantee that additional proposed amendments would be brought forward in addition to those which triggered the convention in the first place. AGAIN, NOT a comforting thought and an open gate to the law of unintended consequences.
Be careful what you ask for.
