💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › rights.txt captured on 2023-11-14 at 11:43:25.
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-16)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
RIGHTS GUARANTEED Let's eyeball the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amend- ments to the Constitution. Now we will really see some fancy magic by the Cult of the Black Robes. Decision after decision from federal courts across the United States magically become 'law'. The Bill of Rights bears no resemblance to the way they were originally written. When ratifying the Constitution, the states felt there were not enough restrictions on the power of the new central government. They requested that a Bill of Rights be added at the first opportunity. Many argued that no bill of rights was needed. Alexander Hamilton said, "The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitu- tion is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS." Hamilton insisted there was nothing in the Constitution which would allow the government to assume powers which the bill of rights sought to protect. To reduce the fears of some of the states, the First Congress proposed 12 amend- ments to the various states for ratification. Here is the preamble to the Bill of Rights as they were submitted: "The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restric- tive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. . " The intent of the First Congress when the Bill of Rights were assembled. . 'In order to prevent abuse of its powers, we are going to include further restrictions on the central government to promote the general welfare, make a more perfect union, establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty.' Every clause in the first ten amendments is a restric- tion on the government. It's not how they interpret it nor how some judge decides it should apply . . . it's a restric- tion, period! The first two of the proposed 12 amendments were not ratified by the states. The first concerned representation in Congress and the second with restricting Congress from raising its salary. The first eight amendments are really specific restrictions and the last two cover any issue not covered in the first eight. The ninth and tenth are the ones government ignores the most. The First Amendment prohibits the restriction of your religious freedoms which we have already covered in earlier sections. It covers freedom of speech but if you speak out against sensitive issues, you'll be surprised how fast they will shut you up. Many people were recently arrested for demonstrating in front of the Supreme Court, and in front of the White House and Congress. What about the farmers demonstrating in front of the Chicago Board of Trade or people involved in the abortion issue? Can we still peaceably assemble? Today you are free to assemble when the government tells you it is OK otherwise, you will probably end up in jail. The charge is generally 'criminal trespass'. What? Where did they find that one? This is a right which has been turned upside down. About par for the course, isn't it? By what authority does government at any level ignore these restrictive clauses? The last clause is the right to petition for a redress of grievances. This is one which has fallen into disuse. Do you feel you have a grievance against the government? The word redress means to right a wrong, correct an error, remedy or relieve, to correct or reform. Now do you have a grievance that you would like to have redressed? Submit a petition. There is no specific form to use. The 1st Amendment does not specify to which branch of government the petition has to be sent. Any branch, department, section, court, commission, etc., must accept your petition. They must answer and redress what you are complaining about. This is a right every reader should exert! At the end of the book, you'll find a copy of a Petition For Redress of Grievances. It's an ASCII file and can be printed out on any printer. It includes the First Amendment to show those to whom you are directing your petition that you know the amendment. It gives them a chance to read it if they don't know what it says. Print it then lay out your complaint in your own words. The simpler you explain what you want corrected, the less chance there is for any bureaucrat to misinterpret what you are trying to get across. Also cite whatever provision of the constitution you are showing has been violated. You might cite the full Ninth and Tenth Amendments to prove that the persons to whom you are addressing your petition have no authority to assume any powers not specifi- cally granted in the Constitution. If you are wrong, they will let you know in a hurry. I wouldn't accept their answers at face value but check them out against my own interpretation of the Constitution and go after them again. You are perfectly free to address it to anyone in the government, be it your own representative, senator, the President or Vice-president, the head of a department, a judge, the Supreme Court, whomever! Every bureaucrat with an ounce of so called power in government should receive a petition for redress. A likely place to show the people what answers are returned would be to write letters to the editors of any newspaper in the country. This Right to Petition for Redress is a tremendous tool for American citizens which has not been used for many years. It is an area in the Bill of Rights with which they have no experience ignoring so we should make extensive use of this right. Now the Second Amendment. The judicial branch of government, our protectors, have effectively disarmed Americans! Look at the "gun laws" which courts have upheld all over the country. Our 'leaders' have decided that you should not own a handgun, assault rifle or a machine gun for that matter. What gives them the right to decide that? Arms are defined as "Weapons, especially firearms." It doesn't say only firearms so where do they make the distinc- tion? It's plain that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It has nothing to do with the militia! This is part of those declaratory and restrictive clauses added to prevent a misconstruction or abuse of it's powers. They can do nothing which will keep an American citizen from owning any weapon he or she desires. It's that simple! This was a unique stance for any government to guarantee its citizens the right to own weapons. Switzerland is another which has such a guarantee. Where does it say that arms need to be registered? No where! This is part of the prohibition on Congress. Registration is a dangerous practice and must be stopped. You don't have to look too far into history to see why government wants a list of owners of weapons . . . then it's no problem to visit everyone on the list and demand the weapon be turned in. That is while they hold a weapon on the owner. We have had presidents shot in our history, other people in government have been shot but the Second Amendment has stood firm. Suddenly, in the early sixties, we have a president shot (under circumstances that suggest it was other than a plain citizen), then his brother is shot and now all Americans are dangerous and should no longer be able to buy, have or keep weapons. Isn't that strange? Why were the major gun laws passed in 1968 and not when other presidents were killed? Is this part of what the courts call "public policy" and the Constitution be damned? It's a policy to get the weapons away from Americans for purposes other than some public official may be shot. You hear much talk about guns being authorized only for the militia which is gobbledygook. Here are statements of several states when they ratified the Constitution and requested a Bill of Rights: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people CAPABLE OF BEARING ARMS, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;". Notice the semicolon after keep and bear arms. . . There is no connection of that statement to the well regulated militia. These are two complete and separate statements. Perhaps they no longer want us to be a free State. The State of New Hampshire was even more direct in its demand on the arms issue. "Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such are or have been in rebellion." The people of those times would have never given up their weapons whether they were a member of the militia or not! The same applies today. No one is forced to own a gun. And no one has the right to tell a citizen he or she cannot own a gun whatever shape or form it may take. Our 'leaders' have probably suddenly discovered that they bleed as we do. They want to take away your weapons to reduce their chance of bleeding! That is ridiculous also. The persons intent on doing bodily harm to anyone will find a way to get the weapon they need regardless of what the government has to say about weapons. If everyone owned a weapon, whether it be a hand gun, rifle, shotgun or even a machine gun, there would be a lot less violence with weapons. The two incidents recently, one in New York City, the other in Chicago show that Americans have a right to defend themselves. The public and law enforcement officials are solidly behind the idea that citizens have that right. Some of the elected officials are not so happy about it. So what is the purpose of gun laws? Simply people control. New York City has the first and strictest gun control law on the books and what good does it serve? If people are intent on committing violence, they will use screwdrivers or baseball bats. Are they going to outlaw screwdrivers next? Nonsense. Look at Switzerland . . . Every able bodied man is trained in weapons and issued a weapon to keep in his home, ready always. Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world. There is a lesson there; gun control is an insult to the American people. Government spends billions on all sorts of weapons but feels the citizen who has a constitutional right to have weapons is not to be trusted owning a handgun. Is it just because they do it and the "guardian of our rights" decide they will rubber stamp it because it is 'public policy' now? How did a clause designed to be a restriction on big brother get turned around to become a restriction on the people who delegated the right to be governed? Another recent issue in the area of the 2nd Amendment shows the contempt the bureaucracy has for us . . bullet proof vests. There is a proposal floating around that would outlaw anyone except law enforcement personnel from owning or wearing a bullet proof vest. There will be exceptions to allow our leaders to wear one if they desire. They just want to make certain that they will not bleed but we will. How about that? How many people would go through the expense of a bullet proof vest is questionable. Yet they have no right to "pass a law" saying we can't own one. Every American citizen should own at least one weapon and know how to use it proficiently. Should an incident arise, you must be able to protect yourself or family. If you have a weapon and never have to use it, what have you lost? Nothing . . . and that is the point. Every time there is an incident involving a weapon where several people are shot or killed, idiots come out of the woodwork screaming for more gun control. Yet some jerk can drive an automobile into a crowd and kill five or six people. No one says we should outlaw automobiles . . . yet these people are as dead . . . Let me point out now that we have gone through all the points on 'keeping and bearing arms'. . . I am NOT a member of any gun club or NRA. I just believe in our Constitution. The Third Amendment is one which is mainly the result of the Revolutionary War. . "No soldier shall be quartered in any house. . " but this should be considered together with the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It reinforces the reason for the 2nd. I sincerely hope we never have to try to force the issue of soldiers in American homes through our kangaroo court system. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . " and if you still believe that, I have a piece of ocean front property in Arizona I want to sell. The people of the colonies had a lot of trouble with searches and seizures which were conducted by the Kings men. They used "Writs of Assistance" which were papers they carried in their pockets. They would simply fill out a name and hand it to the individual and they had the 'right' to search their home. There was no need to show "probable cause" or to get a warrant from a judicial officer, they just went in a person's home and looked and took whatever they decided they wanted. See the reason for the 4th Amendment? Now the courts have decided that the police can stop an automobile, search it and seize what they find without a warrant. The executive branch has been given 'authority' to go to your bank and get all your records and papers (Internal Revenue Service) without even letting you know. They can go to the telephone company and get all the records of your calls, etc. Apparently youngsters in school are not people as defined in the 4th Amendment because school officials can open a locker and search whenever they want. Does the 4th Amendment say schools or school kids are exempt from the restriction? People who are only accused of a 'crime' have had papers taken without search warrants and even had the papers confiscated without any authority in our Constitution. Case after case the courts have watered down the Fourth Amendment until it is now practically nonexistent. Why? More usurpation of the protections we are guaranteed in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. We must assume control of our government! When we speak of the Fifth Amendment, most people think of "someone invoking the Fifth" or refusing to testify against himself. (Judges have it even easier, all they have to say is it is frivolous.) But the Fifth Amendment is an involved amendment and contains a bunch of guarantees. There are many parts to the 5th Amendment. . No one shall be tried for the same crime twice. . No one shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime except through a Grand Jury. . No one is required to be a witness against himself. . . Nor can any citizen be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. . Nor can private property be taken for public use without just compensation! That's a load of protection for us. The 5th Amendment is more dead than the 4th Amendment. There are some judges who will not even allow the 5th Amend- ment to be mentioned in their courtrooms. Do you remember what their oath said? All the clauses of this amendment are important to our survival but the most important part is: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This about covers all the other issues of the entire amendment. Now courts are trying to decide or demanding that a citizen define due process. More judicial buffoonery! What is the 'law'? First, our Constitution and secondly, all laws passed in conformance with the Constitution. If your papers are seized without a warrant parti- cularly describing the papers to be seized, this is not due process. Any reader can figure from that just what due process is. Did you agree to allow our rights to be ignored or purposely violated? If we have all these rights and the entire government must respect and protect them, how could they possibly do their job? In the Sixth Amendment, we examine the rights of a person who is accused of a crime. The accused has the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury where the crime was to have been committed. The accused also has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the crime he/she is being charged with. Also to be confronted by the witnesses against him. They also have the right to have the government pay for witnesses if the accused can't afford to pay to have them testify for him. Further, they have the right to have assistance of counsel for their defense. Most of this amendment has been turned around. The speedy trial requirement has usually been observed. Public trial has not. There have been many instances where judges decide what will be made public violating this amendment. They claim they have 'discretion' to decide that point. Where does this amendment allow for that discretion? An impartial jury is a requirement being ignored more and more. Government prosecutors have been known to check backgrounds of potential jurors through computers and eliminate those who would not be favorable to their side. They deny this saying this could never happen in our system. But they don't always tell the truth as we have seen. We spoke earlier about the necessity of an impartial jury trying the law as well as the supposed crime. When pressed about this, the federales will admit that the jury has the right to try the law also but feel they are not required to inform the jury of this fact. It is most important that any accused person have a truly impartial jury as required by this amendment. It should not be necessary for a person accused of a crime to have to try to prove that the jury was biased in any way. This is one of those sneaky points where the government can get away with handpicking the jury to assure a conviction. If a jury is truly impartial, you should be able to go out into the street and pick the first twelve people you meet to be jurors. Having the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him is also by the wayside. Now we have undercover agents who simply make an accusation and are protected from appearing as required by this amendment. Must protect their identity . . . they say. What about this constitutional requirement? The right to counsel has been twisted out of recogni- tion. According to the judges and courts, when it says counsel, it means attorney or lawyer. But it doesn't say that. Counsel has never been defined as an attorney. Judges and attorneys are all members of the same fraternity. They have decided that counsel means attorney to keep their friends working. Why should it matter to a court if you have an attorney? They require an attorney because attorneys are a member of the court. The courts will then force the attorney to follow their rules and sacrifice your rights in order not to upset the judge or court. If you were accused of a crime and you knew a person who was not an attorney but was well versed in law, you have the right under the Sixth Amendment to have him assist you in your defense. Judges enjoy amending the Constitution and you will have a fight on your hands to insist that this right be respected. But, what is a little fight with a public servant? Remember . . . the judicial branch considers rights as fighting words. The Seventh Amendment assures the right to a jury trial in a civil case according to the practice of common law. Common law practice came to this country from Great Britain and was used throughout the original thirteen colonies at the time the Constitution was adopted. For a good explana- tion of common law, purchase a copy of The Federalist Papers and read paper #83 by Alexander Hamilton. The right to a trial by jury in a criminal case has already been guaranteed in the basic document. Neverthe- less, the states wanted this further restriction. The right in a civil case where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars shall be preserved. The case could be tried before a judge alone but only if the parties in the suit agree to waive the jury. This also means that each citizen is guaranteed the right to demand a jury trial anytime they are assessed by big brother, whether it be a fine or an assessment by the Internal Revenue Service. That any controversy where the value exceeds twenty dollars, you have the right under this amendment to demand that the fact be tried before an impartial jury. This was included to prevent overzealous actions by the central government and their agents. The Eighth Amendment forbids the government from demanding excessive bail where, considering the financial circumstances of the individual, the government could keep someone in jail for an indefinite period where the needs of justice would not be served. It's obvious that this practice has been turned around because judges will decide that they want to hold someone in jail and set excessive bail requirements. There again, we find judges amending the Constitution violating Article V of the basic document. They have decided . . . It's as simple as that! The men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights knew they could not cover all the events and cir- cumstances that might happen in the future so they included two more amendments as "catch-alls." The Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The first eight amendments were abuses which the colonists suffered under British Royal rule and were spelled out as prohibitions against the national government. Now to make sure the government was kept inside the fence of delegated powers, they included the Ninth Amendment. It reads as follows: "THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITU- TION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE." The Ninth makes it unmistakably clear that the government cannot and could not interfere with any rights which the people retained. These include an endless list of things not spelled out in the first eight amendments. A citizen has the right to do or not do whatever he or she pleases as long as the rights of others are not violated. Of course those choices must be in keeping with the JUST laws which conform with and are passed in pursuance of the Constitution. Now let's again take a look at what the Tenth Amendment spells out: "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." How do they get away with police powers, making any thing but gold and silver coin as tender, allowing a private corporation control the value of our money, establishing crimes, etc? These two amendments simply point out what was true . . . That the new government was one of specific, limited, enumerated powers delegated by us. Have they faithfully observed these amendments? Of course not. Now you can see why the national government ignores these two amendments. They show absolutely that they are forbidden from doing anything which was not spelled out. These two amendments are the 'yardsticks' by which we can judge whether any branch of government, be it the legislative, executive or judicial, is exceeding it's authority. Is our Constitution dead? It's up to you. Let's read in part what the Declaration of Independence says about rights being violated: "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. . That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government. . [when we are forced to suffer] a long train of abuses and usurpations. . It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such govern- ment, and to provide new guards for their security." Our government, under constitutional standards, has only three functions. They are (1) DELIVER OUR MAIL, (2) DEFEND OUR SHORES and (3) STAY THE HELL OUT OF OUR LIVES! There is nothing further! They have NO OTHER POWER. REGISTRATION DETAILS COMING UP .... THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT ....