Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
“It astonishes me to find… [that so many] of our countrymen… should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty… which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries.”
–Thomas Jefferson, 1788
“Most citizens,” writes columnist Nat Hentoff, “are largely uneducated about their own constitutional rights and liberties.”
The following true incident is a case in point for Hentoff’s claim. A young attorney, preparing to address a small gathering about the need to protect freedom, especially in the schools, wrote the text of the First Amendment on a blackboard. After carefully reading the text, a woman in the audience approached the attorney, pointed to the First Amendment on the board and remarked, “My, the law is really changing. Is this new?” The woman was a retired schoolteacher.
For more than 200 years, Americans have enjoyed the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, among others, without ever really studying the source of those liberties, found in the Bill of Rights–the first ten amendments to our U. S. Constitution.
Yet never has there been a time when knowing our rights has been more critical and safeguarding them more necessary. Particularly telling is the fact that even under the Obama presidency, most of the Bush administration policies and laws that curtailed our freedoms have remained intact–all of which have drastically altered the landscape of our liberties.
Thus, it is vital that we gain a better understanding of what Thomas Jefferson described as “fetters against doing evil.” If not, I fear that with each passing day, what Jefferson called the “degeneracy” of “the principles of liberty” will grow worse until, half asleep, Americans will lose what our forefathers fought and died for.
A short summary of the first ten amendments shows how vital these freedoms are.
The First Amendment protects the freedom to speak your mind and protest in peace without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans cannot be silenced by the government.
The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” This is one of the most controversial provisions of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, there are those who claim that gun ownership in America should be restricted solely to the police and other government officials.
In many countries, owning a firearm is a mere privilege, reserved for the rich and powerful. Self-protection, however, is not a privilege in America. It is an individual citizen right which the U.S. Supreme Court has now recognized.
America was born during a time of martial law. British troops stationed themselves in homes and entered property without regard to the rights of the owners. That is why the Third Amendment prohibits the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” Even though today’s military does not threaten private property, this amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military. But increasingly, even under the Obama presidency, the threat of martial law being imposed is a clear and present danger.
There’s a knock at the door. The police charge in and begin searching your home. They invade your privacy, rummaging through your belongings. You may think you’re powerless to stop them, but you’re not. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from searching your home without a warrant approved by a judge. But what about other kinds of invasions? Your telephone, mail, computer and medical records are now subject to governmental search.
Even though they’re all personal and private, they are increasingly at risk for unwarranted intrusion by government agents. The ominous rise of the surveillance state threatens the protections given us by this amendment.
You cannot be tried again after having been found innocent. The government cannot try you repeatedly for the same crime, hoping to get the result they want. It’s one of the legal protections of the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. You can “plead the Fifth.”
This means that if you are accused of committing a crime, it is up to the state to prove its case against you. You are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without following strict legal codes of conduct.
The Sixth Amendment spells out the right to a “speedy and public trial.” An accused person can confront the witnesses against him and demand to know the nature of the charge. The government cannot legally keep someone in jail for unspecified offenses.
Moreover, unlike many other countries, Americans also have the right to be tried by a jury of ordinary citizens and to be represented by an attorney. Our fates in criminal proceedings are not decided by panels of judges or unaccountable politicians.
Property ownership is a fundamental right of free people. In a legal dispute over property, the Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial.
Like any other American citizen, those accused of being criminals have rights under the Constitution as well. In some countries, the government abuses what they see as disloyal or troublesome citizens by keeping them in jail indefinitely on trumped-up charges. If they cannot pay their bail, then they’re not released. The Eighth Amendment is, thus, similar to the Sixth–it protects the rights of the accused. These are often the people most susceptible to abuse and who have the least resources to defend themselves. This amendment also forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishment.
The framers of our Constitution were so concerned about civil liberties that they wished to do everything conceivable to protect our future freedom. Some of the framers opposed a bill of rights because it might appear that these were the only rights the people possessed. The Ninth Amendment remedied that by providing that other rights not listed were nonetheless retained by the people.
Our rights are inherently ours, and our government was created to protect them. The government does not, nor did it ever, have the power to grant us our rights. Popular sovereignty–the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers–is clearly evident in this amendment and is a landmark of American freedom.
Ours is a federal system of government. This means that power is divided among local, state and national entities. The Tenth Amendment reminds the national government that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution.
Congress and the President have increasingly assumed more power than the Constitution grants them. However, it’s up to the people and the state governments to make sure that they obey the law of the land.
Having stood the test of time, there is little doubt that the Bill of Rights is the greatest statement for freedom ever drafted and put into effect. In the end, however, it is the vigilance of “we the people” that will keep the freedoms we hold so dear alive. Therefore, know your rights, exercise them freely or you’re going to lose them.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His latest book The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks) is now available.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Mr. Whitehead wrote:
“Most citizens,†writes columnist Nat Hentoff, “are largely uneducated about their own constitutional rights and liberties.â€
What class of so-called "constitutional rights" is Mr. Hentoff talking about? If he is referring to the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, then he too falls in the class of uneducated citizens. If he had read the preamble to the Bill of Rights, then would know there is no such things as "constitutional rights" when it comes to those Amendments.
The first paragraph of the preamble states the sole purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.†To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses†were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, placed additional restraints on the powers of the federal government.
Since the Amendments, as stated in the preamble, did not create or grant any individual rights, but placed prohibitions on the powers of the federal government, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights cannot be construed as “constitutional rights.†Based on the wording of the preamble, the Amendments, when adopted, placed “constitutional prohibitions†on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers†concerning the rights of the people.
For example, there is no constitutional or First Amendment right of free speech. There is a God-given or what some call a natural right of free speech. The First Amendment simply prohibits or restrains the federal government from passing any law that would violate the right. Thus, there is a constitutional or First Amendment restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the right of free speech.
The Amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights are simply enumerated restraints on the powers of the federal government and an extension of the system of limited government established by the Constitution.
We are losing the battle because we are using incorrect terms and advancing incorrect principles. This had allowed the federal government to take amendments that were designed to restraint its powers and transform them into a grant of power, i.e., since the Amendments grant or secure "constitutional rights," then we have the power to define the extent of those rights.
If the American people understood these principles, then they would be reminding the federal government and the reprobates who infest that government that you we NEVER granted the power to define the extent of enumerated restraints on your power.
Mr. Whitehead stated:
“Some of the framers opposed a bill of rights because it might appear that these were the only rights the people possessed.â€
I believe Mr. Whitehead’s statement reflects only a small part of the debate. A review of the debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, the Federalist Essays (see Hamilton’s comments in No. 84), the debates in the State Ratifying Conventions, and various speeches show there were 2 primary reasons why a bill of rights was excluded from the Constitution—as originally written.
1-The Constitution would establish a federal government of limited enumerated powers. Under this system of government every power not granted would be denied. Since the federal government was not being granted any general power over the rights of the people, it was argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary. In fact, it was asserted that a bill of rights could be dangerous because it would enumerate restraints on powers not granted and potentially damage the system of limited government being established.
2-The delegates recognized that the duty of securing the rights of the people was reserved to the States. Not to mention the fact that the federal government was not being granted the general power to secure the people’s rights.
In October of 1787, in a speech at Independence Hall, James Wilson, a Federalist from Pennsylvania, explained the proposed constitution and answered some of the criticisms being leveled against it. In his speech, Wilson succinctly stated why a bill of rights had been omitted from the Constitution:
“It will be proper...to mark the leading discrimination between the State constitutions and the Constitution of the United States. When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve...if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating federal powers, another criterion was necessarily introduced, and the congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union. Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything that is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything that is not given is reserved.
This distinction being recognized, will furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights a defect in the proposed constitution; for it would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act that has brought the body into existence. For instance, the liberty of the press,...what control can proceed from the Federal government to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom?...the proposed system possesses no influence whatever upon the press, and it would have been merely nugatory to have introduced a formal declaration upon the subject—nay, that very declaration might have been construed to imply that some degree of power was given, since we undertook to define its extent.â€
Wilson, who had unsuccessfully advocated a strong national form of government in the Federal Convention, clearly understood the system of government that would be established by the proposed constitution. Since the federal government would be granted limited enumerated powers, every power not granted would be denied irrespective of whether it contained a bill of rights. Thus, as explained by Wilson, the omission of a bill of rights was consistent with the system of limited government that would be established by the Constitution. Why enumerate restraints on powers not granted?
Why, for example, tell your 17-year-old son that he cannot drive your car on Saturday nights when you never gave him permission to drive your car in the first place? Same principle!
The comments regarding voting to change our government is false. Wake up! Our politicians all answer to the same bosses; global corporations, bankers, the world's eletes, royal bloodlines, illuminati, secret societies, ie: THE NEW WORLD ORDER IS ALIVE AND WELL IN AMERICA. O'Bama calls his lies "campaign retoric". People should have checked out involvement in the Council of Foreign Relations, Triliateral Commission and Bilderberg Group of all individuals running for office. These groups are all one world government organizations. Prove me wrong, please! Also, look up their new Ten Commandments on the Georgia Guidestones. They are going to eliminate 93% of out current world population if they succeed. Knowledge is power. Don't be brainwashed by the media these people own to deceive you. Utilize the internet while you still can.
Welcome, Paul Cooper!
The federal courts are pretty much controlled by the usurpers.
We still have effective remedies: (1) JUST SAY "NO"! The states, the counties, the cities, and We the People need to say, "NO!".
We have been conditioned into believing that the "Rule of Law" means that we have to obey whatever anybody in "government" says. But that is not true! Laws which are not pursuant to the Constitution are merely acts of usurpation and deserve to be treated as such (The Federalist No. 33, 6th & 7th paras, Hamilton). An unconstitutional law is NO LAW - it is void. WE, THE PEOPLE, need to relearn this and start acting on it.
(2) James Madison said, respecting usurpations by Congress, "in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers" (The Federalist, No. 44, 17th para).
So! Learn, and then teach those within your spheres of influence. Work to defeat in the next election any representatives of yours who are faithless. Look into your State's recall procedures. PH
Well said, Bob Greenslade & others!
It was in The Federalist Papers, No. 84, 10th Para, where Alexander Hamilton explained why Bills of Rights are dangerous. He was right: the Bill of Rights HAS furnished, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming the power to restrict & eliminate our Rights. Note that the discussion today is not about our God-given rights to defend ourselves & bear arms; but about whether the 2nd Amendment applies to private citizens or only to the government-controlled militia. If the latter, then they say we have no "right" to bear arms.
D.C. v. Heller (2008), which upheld private ownership of guns, was a 5 to 4 decision! Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, spoke of "the FULL SCOPE OF the Second Amendment", "the Second Amendment CONFERRED an individual right to keep and bear arms".
So, not only does our friend, Scalia, completely misunderstand where Rights come from; but one more vote for the other side, and we can kill "legal" ownership of guns goodbye. THAT is what happens when we teach and believe that our Rights come from the Bill of Rights!
We must teach all within our spheres of influence: Our Rights come from God, are unalienable & predate the Constitution! WE created the Constitution & the federal government. It is OUR "creature" (Federalist No.33,6th Para, Hamilton). Why would the Creator (that's us) grant to our "creature" (the federal courts & other branches of the federal government), the power to determine & define OUR RIGHTS?
PH
Mr. Whitehead wrote:
“Most citizens,” writes columnist Nat Hentoff, “are largely uneducated about their own constitutional rights and liberties.”
What class of so-called "constitutional rights" is Mr. Hentoff talking about? If he is referring to the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, then he too falls in the class of uneducated citizens. If he had read the preamble to the Bill of Rights, then would know there is no such things as "constitutional rights" when it comes to those Amendments.
The first paragraph of the preamble states the sole purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, placed additional restraints on the powers of the federal government.
Since the Amendments, as stated in the preamble, did not create or grant any individual rights, but placed prohibitions on the powers of the federal government, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights cannot be construed as “constitutional rights.” Based on the wording of the preamble, the Amendments, when adopted, placed “constitutional prohibitions” on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers” concerning the rights of the people.
For example, there is no constitutional or First Amendment right of free speech. There is a God-given or what some call a natural right of free speech. The First Amendment simply prohibits or restrains the federal government from passing any law that would violate the right. Thus, there is a constitutional or First Amendment restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the right of free speech.
The Amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights are simply enumerated restraints on the powers of the federal government and an extension of the system of limited government established by the Constitution.
We are losing the battle because we are using incorrect terms and advancing incorrect principles. This had allowed the federal government to take amendments that were designed to restraint its powers and transform them into a grant of power, i.e., since the Amendments grant or secure "constitutional rights," then we have the power to define the extent of those rights.
If the American people understood these principles, then they would be reminding the federal government and the reprobates who infest that government that you we NEVER granted the power to define the extent of enumerated restraints on your power.
Hey! I resemble that remark! ;-)
The government realizes that the easiest way to dictate to it's citizens is to dumb down their education. Most of our (USA) citizens under the age of thirty know absolutely nothing about the "CONSTITUTION" or "THE BILL OF RIGHTS"! Furthermore, they couldn't care less and have no idea where our country is heading. They're too busy with tv programs like DANCING WITH THE STARS or TEXTING or talking nonsense on their cellphones.
The first sign of intelligence is CURIOSITY. They have no curiosity, matter of fact they're dumber than a box of rocks!
Ray, I don't think you've spent much time around American OVER the age of 30 lately. In fact, I submit that those over the age of 65-70 are the most socialist generation living today, and in terms of constitutional ignorance, indistinguishable from those younger ones you mention.
The good news: 1) ignorance is curable; 2) only a small minority is required to restore our republic via rule of law; and 3) the mission of AmericaAgain! is to effect #1 and #2.
Go to JoinAmericaAgain dot com, and view the 3-minute video; read the FAQs. America is not only recoverable, thanks be to God; she may be nearing her finest hour in 220 years, if a small minority will get to work.
I have only come lately to follow the discussions on the loss of our constitutional rights and freedoms.
My question is how can we as the people either sue the federal government or somehow insist that the gov rescind it's encroachment of our rights?
I have read with great interest the 10th amendment resolutions passed by the various states and wonder why the states themselves don't bring suit against the gov for its intrusions.
There must be a way that pressure can be brought to force the government to back off its wholesale usurpation of our civil rights.
Look at JoinAmericaAgain dot com and you'll have your answer. The Tenth Amendment is more than adequate to restoring the reserved rights and powers of the sovereign People and States, and limiting the federal government to its enumerated. The only question is: can the righteous and productive citizens fight off the clamoring, grasping protestations of those who live parasitically off government funds?
If the ballot box had any power that could truly affect change on the national level it would be outlawed.
Mr. Whitehead stated:
“Some of the framers opposed a bill of rights because it might appear that these were the only rights the people possessed.”
I believe Mr. Whitehead’s statement reflects only a small part of the debate. A review of the debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, the Federalist Essays (see Hamilton’s comments in No. 84), the debates in the State Ratifying Conventions, and various speeches show there were 2 primary reasons why a bill of rights was excluded from the Constitution—as originally written.
1-The Constitution would establish a federal government of limited enumerated powers. Under this system of government every power not granted would be denied. Since the federal government was not being granted any general power over the rights of the people, it was argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary. In fact, it was asserted that a bill of rights could be dangerous because it would enumerate restraints on powers not granted and potentially damage the system of limited government being established.
2-The delegates recognized that the duty of securing the rights of the people was reserved to the States. Not to mention the fact that the federal government was not being granted the general power to secure the people’s rights.
In October of 1787, in a speech at Independence Hall, James Wilson, a Federalist from Pennsylvania, explained the proposed constitution and answered some of the criticisms being leveled against it. In his speech, Wilson succinctly stated why a bill of rights had been omitted from the Constitution:
“It will be proper...to mark the leading discrimination between the State constitutions and the Constitution of the United States. When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve...if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating federal powers, another criterion was necessarily introduced, and the congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union. Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything that is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything that is not given is reserved.
This distinction being recognized, will furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights a defect in the proposed constitution; for it would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act that has brought the body into existence. For instance, the liberty of the press,...what control can proceed from the Federal government to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom?...the proposed system possesses no influence whatever upon the press, and it would have been merely nugatory to have introduced a formal declaration upon the subject—nay, that very declaration might have been construed to imply that some degree of power was given, since we undertook to define its extent.”
Wilson, who had unsuccessfully advocated a strong national form of government in the Federal Convention, clearly understood the system of government that would be established by the proposed constitution. Since the federal government would be granted limited enumerated powers, every power not granted would be denied irrespective of whether it contained a bill of rights. Thus, as explained by Wilson, the omission of a bill of rights was consistent with the system of limited government that would be established by the Constitution. Why enumerate restraints on powers not granted?
Why, for example, tell your 17-year-old son that he cannot drive your car on Saturday nights when you never gave him permission to drive your car in the first place? Same principle!
Hurray for Louisian indeed...Amercans will see the implications of this usurpation of individual rights under Bush and even more so under Fraud Obama even more so when the so called now named some even more bengn sounding name Act comes down requiring children and others to "serve" the state! ..like it or not. We must wake more people up to what is happening..
We must. I urge everyone to continue to pass around this site's address and to address every instance of usurpation they can identify. Obama's recent mealy mouthed comments re the people in the streets of Iran is an example ..not surprising..of his latter day "Chamberlin"
mind. I saw phots of people literally hacked with axes to death...and I have no doubt that he will sit down with the Tyrant as he previously indicated if the Tyrant(s) manage to quell what is happening in Iran.
I am a life long Democrat..a Jeffersonian Democrat...who demands that this President assert the nature of individual freedom in his policies and actions...here and abroad.
Speak up Americans!
...and this.
...like this.
You must have had soggy Wheaties for breakfast. That wasn't a very nice comment about a site that someone works their butt off on for the benefit of everyone else to enjoy - for free.
PS: Just a side-note, I like the OLD format for this site MUCH better than this new one. I had to edit out an entire paragraph, as you now have a word limit. If you are going to do that at LEAST make it 400 words, like WND has on their site. If our posts are going to be restricted to the point of not being able to fully express ourselves in a reasonable number of words, then maybe it's time to leave.
C'mon man, you can figure this out. Nothing has to be edited out of your posts. Just put your full comments in successive entries...
I prefer longer comments and most people seem to be able to post them. The only troubles that have been reported so far have been when using Internet Explorer - which I personally had to stop using a long long time ago. There's nothing limiting your expression. The only things I've been opposed to so far are racism and calls for violence. Other than that, have at it. Even if you need to use more than one comment to make your point.
Might make it easier for the system to load that way...
Alan, In regards to another force beyond the ballot box, what do you think Thomas Jefferson and the rest of our forefathers would have to say about that? There is no doubt in my mind that THEY would not allow themselves to be shackled only to non-physical means! It's BASIC common sense to, if necessary, physically correct ANY person who refuses to adhere to our Constitutional guidlines when that refusal cannot be corrected in any other non-physical manner, and is a direct or indirect threat to our survival as a free nation! Just as a child who has parents who never employ corporal punisment for misdeeds, he soon learns that there is no REAL consequence if he continues his misdeeds! It's human nature, no matter what the age group! So, I truly believe that our forefathers would have physically yanked ANYONE out of office once it was established that the ballots were fraudulent and the judicial system corrupt......without a doubt! There is no other option, but SUBMISSION to tyranny!
ANTICRIME - you adovacte commiting a crime, what are you wating on?
The Constitution says in Article I, Section 2, that the "People" shall choose (elect) Congressmen every two years. It is a crime to shoot Congressmen out of office but is not a crime to vote them out.
Allan
Good point. The ballot box is only acceptable and useful for a certain period of time. Sooner or later other strategies need to be employed.
Thomas Jefferson had some serious foresight.. It's a good thing that he wasn't here to see the whole thing hit the crapper in a short couple of hundred years. Politicians who pay lip service during their reelection campaigns, using words like freedom, liberty and rights, should be reminded that we are well aware that our rights have been reduced to privileges that are conditionally granted.So they needn't bother with the BS speech... We are programed into complacency, Independence day is coming up and our leaders will again use it to drive home their BS that "we are a great nation.. blah, blah blah..", Phony parades, and phony flag waving by uneducated, uninformed, and uncaring Americans who are willing to sellout their rights... People picnicking in state parks, built with federal money, driving on roads built with federal money, in cars that will soon be built with federal money.. July 4th,Washington DC will look like Pyongyang.. the only ones buying into their Bullsh!t are the party leaders and members, drones
invited to make a show to further the propaganda that we are a freedom loving nation
Explain to me the Celebration of Independence day again? because July 4th is nothing more then just another meaningless Holiday... yeah, I know my rights.. I know my rights are gone.
I've been silently tracking issues relating to the pursuit of liberty since I was a freshmen at high school when I felt the extreme urge to escape the religious cult my parents had been allowing to dominate them for much of twenty years.
The experience allowed me to peer into the mechanisms that form quiet but deadly changes wherein over time strong and actionable independence softens into the rueful plea for independence. Where the personal decision making process is demurely subordinated to external authority.
The processes that create cults are more overt than the dynamics that drive a supposed liberty-based country to create and apply massive codified systems but the results between the processes are similar: conformity at all cost.
Once the wheels of control are synchronized, little effort is required by massive entities working together over the space of years to slowly put in place a mechanism that takes over daily life to such an extent that the subjects (American citizens) actually JUSTIFY its existence and most will even embrace it.
In my view, this is not a liberal or conservative issue. I do not buy into this notion that conservatives are more aware as a group. I am not convinced liberals are as free-wheeling as the right likes to think.
The problem of restriction and domination is a national problem that has infested every corner of our existence. Law enforcement is rife with the rejection of principles relating to liberty. They are not taught to respect the common citizen. Some do, but, most are beasts of burden more than thrilled to carry the acidic water of federal and state statutes mimicking authoritarian rule in repressive countries.
The intellectual capacity present in ALL news media outlets is malformed and has degenerated into pretty faces clothing empty skulls. The paper rags are little better, just toss the pretty faces in exchange for textual flourish. At this time the internet does appear to be providing unfiltered and raw sources of disapproval. This should continue unabated.
Great perspective, thanks for sharing. I thought this part of your comment was worth repeating:
"In my view, this is not a liberal or conservative issue. I do not buy into this notion that conservatives are more aware as a group. I am not convinced liberals are as free-wheeling as the right likes to think."
BK, I am not aware of any limited choice when voting for the election of Lawmakers.
Access to the ballot is controlled but no voter is compelled to vote for anyone on the ballot. What compels or restricts a voter to vote for someone on a ballot?
Besides your "excuses" do not negate the fact that the ballot box is the People's on constitutional force they can use against government Officials. Do you know of any other "force" the People have to keep government Officials bound to their Oath of Office?
Allan
Yeah. Stringing them up and tarring and feathering them. And I ain't smiling.
"Our rights are inherently ours, and our government was created to protect them"
Our government was created to protect them, is pure political propaganda, no it's an outright lie. Propaganda is 90% true.
The Bill of Rights are Law forbidding government infringement and no law enforces itself, an un-enforced law protects nothing.
The People, not government, are obligated to enforce the entire Law of the Constitution on government Officials. The only "Right" of enforcement the People have over government "Officials" is the Ballot Box. Quit griping about what is going on and begging government Officials to honor their Oath of Office and vote to not reelect your Lawmaker in 2010.
Allan
Allan,
I truly wish it were that simple. The problem is that for decades we have only been allowed the option of voting for the lessor of two evils. What we need is more choices and this is where we as the people can make the most difference by identifying and supporting with our hard earned dollars a better choice. In fact we will need our own media network to begin with because simply finding a good candidate is only the beginning and the major media will crush our efforts. Look at what happen to Ron Paul who was hands down the best candidate for the people in the recent election. We are fighting a monster so large its hard to perceive for most people.
...that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men,... -DoI
On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated... -Federalist no. 1
Government Officials take an Oath to support the Constitution, they do not take an oath to support the D of I.
The People are obligated to "enforce" the Constitution's Oath on Officials and not the D of I.
Allan
Huh? You think the DoI doesn't express the political philosophy of those that crafted the U.S. Constitution?
Yes, D of I has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, the government it created in 1787, and the Citizenry under that Constitution.
What do you advocate by insisting on the D of I, armed revolution? That's what the D of I is about, shooting government. If that's what you want what are you waiting on?
Allan
Okie dokie. My apologies to the admins, but I have a very low tolerance level for such abject idiocy.
Allan - where does this "obligation" come from? I signed no contract, I am not obligated to anything. But, I do agree that expecting politicians to enforce laws that restrict their own activity is foolish...
Can you provide an example of how the ballot box has expanded liberty or enforced the constitution? Seems to be a wholly failed strategy. That's why people are looking to the 10th amendment for a new one.
The Bill of Rights is a strong affirmation of the fundamental principles that rivers of blood have been spilled over the course of history to establish -- God's principle of individuality, (Christian) self-government, the property of conscience, and voluntary political union to secure these unalienable rights. It took centuries to establish all of these and more under a singularly exceptional model of government. But we're on the verge of destroying it all in a matter of a couple of generations.
The key is the word voluntary, right? That's the source of everything in free society - free will, voluntary choice, etc - as long as those choices don't violate the person or property of another.
That's right. It's the reason I highlighted the word in italics.
I thought this was a great reminder of how things should be....honored that the Rutherford Institute authorized us to post the article. Sadly, though, most if not all - of these rights are pretty much gone and reduced to little more than privileges
Yes; it is a pity. We've squandered away the most precious gifts human beings could ever ask for. What is worse is that so much human sacrifice went into acquiring acknowledgment of these rights and passing them down to us. I suppose it's time to ante up and kick in.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
popurls.com // popular today…
story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…
[...] Tenth Amendment Center [...]
[...] June 28, 2009 in Can’t Stop The Signal | Tags: Bill of Rights, Constitution From the Tenth Amendment Center, Know Your Rights or You Will Lose Them [...]