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.

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

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

“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.