Let us take a look at what our “Bill of Rights” has become today:
Article I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. And yet, over the last 40 years, the Courts have been doing just that: prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, and at the same time establishing a national religion; atheism. Now, contrary to those who believe otherwise, the Constitution is NOT violated by a person’s public display of religious faith. Rather, our Constitution is violated when federal judges presume to invent new laws by fiat, which persecute those with whom they disagree! The phrase “free exercise” means “to do”, to practice the freedom to LIVE your faith! But liberal judges are putting us in a box where freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion. You can privately believe what you want, but you cannot publicly ACT on what you believe! When federal judges suppress the desire of the people in states and communities to express their reverence for Almighty God, what they are doing IS imposing religion. Their religion; a national religion of atheism! These liberal, elitist judges are establishing this national religion of atheism in defiance of the Constitution, which forbids any federal role concerning establishment of religion! And YOUR right to the “free exercise” of Religion is no more!
“Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech”. The Founders added this clause with the intent to protect all speech, but especially Political Speech! The Founders understood that opposition to tyranny required the free expression of ideas; they knew that outlawing the free exchange of political ideas was the quickest way to tyranny in government. And yet, do we still enjoy the pleasure of “Free” political speech? Not really. With the passage of the McCain-Feingold “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002” our right to Free Political Speech has been severely diminished. Because of “McCain-Feingold” groups of citizens who band together (such as the NRA). and who wish to run political speech broadcasts through any electronic medium, are banned from doing so by a total blackout 30 days before a federal primary or party caucus and 60 days before a general election if such speech “refers to a clearly identified candidate”, and if it might be seen or heard by 50,000 people in a state or congressional district. Any organization violating the ban, even making reference to a candidate’s name in connection with the popular name of federal legislation, (like McCain-Feingold), could be convicted of a criminal act. Now of course, there are exceptions; like candidates running for re-election, and the biggest exception of all, the media. They are utterly free to say whatever they want, whenever they want, (which, by the way, is the way it ought to be). This amounts to nothing more than a ban on a major aspect of grassroots lobbying and free political speech.
Article II: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. That this is an individual right, and not some “collective” states right is obvious to anyone who takes the time to research the issue! But do we enjoy an Un-Infringed Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms today? The answer is NO! When Congress can pass (and the Courts uphold) a law that bans the ownership of certain Long Guns or Handguns, that is an Infringement of your Second Amendment Right to “Keep” Arms. When Congress can pass (and the Courts uphold) legislation such as the “Gun Free School Zones” law, that is an Infringement of your Second Amendment Right to “Bear” Arms.
The first federal “Gun Free School Zones Act” (1990) was struck down as Un-Constitutional by the US Supreme Court, because the act exceeded the authority of Congress to regulate Commerce. On April 26, 1995, Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court: “In the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense ‘for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone’ [18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A)]. The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress ‘to regulate Commerce . . . among the several States’ (US Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3)”.
But that was not the end of the “Gun Free School Zones Act”. In 1994, Congress re-introduced the same legislation; but with a few minor changes. First, they placed the phrase “interstate commerce” several times throughout the act: “USC - Title 18 - Part I - Chapter 44 - Section 922: Q, (2): (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone”. Second, they included a whole new first section, in which they attempt to make the case that since firearms “Move Easily” in interstate commerce, that then gives them the power to regulate when and where those firearms may be carried; contrary to the Second Amendment of course! Following that logic, Congress should also then have the power to ban what books one may possess, since the sale of books also involves that they “Move Easily” in interstate commerce. Also, in this new section, Congress grant’s to themselves the power to “enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools” (supposedly under the ‘interstate commerce clause’ and ‘other provisions of the Constitution’).
Furthermore, some states don’t allow you to carry a firearm at all; while those that do (with the notable exceptions of Alaska and Vermont) require you to jump through a variety of paperwork hoops before you can do so. The regulations are even worse in some places, such as New York City, Chicago, and our nation’s capital where it’s next to impossible to own a gun at all. When the government can ban us from owning the very Firearms the Founders intended that we should all own as part of the Militia (of the kind in common use by the military), that is an Infringement of our Second Amendment Right, as members of the Unorganized Militia, to “Keep and Bear” Arms.
Over and above all this, the Second Amendment contains its own admonition to the government, clearly stating that “the Right to keep and Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed”. In other words, the “Right to Bear Arms” may not be “Deteriorated, Weakened, or Violated” in any way! It is right there in the wording of the Amendment! So how does the Government justify such statutes as the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, or the Brady Law requiring a background check before you can purchase a Firearm? These are definitely Infringements upon our Second Amendment Right! The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in 1822: “But to be in conflict with the Constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form… whatever restrains the Full and Complete exercise of that Right, though not an entire destruction of it, is Forbidden by the explicit language of the Constitution”. And the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in 1840: “A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of a Right, or which requires Arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be Clearly Unconstitutional”.
Clearly, the Firearms Laws and Statutes imposed upon “We the People” by the federal government over the last 100 years surely “Restrain the Full and Complete exercise of our Second Amendment Right”; and are without a doubt “Forbidden by the explicit language of the Constitution”!
Article IV: “ 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 no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”.
Under the Fourth Amendment, Americans are supposed to be protected from unwarranted searches. Unfortunately, for reasons of expediency and because it was permitted to do so by a complacent public, exceptions were made to various aspects of the Fourth Amendment in the name of the War on (fill in whatever you wish - drugs, terror, ect...). Outside of consent, there are now any number of exceptions to the need for a warrant in a search, many of which are a direct result of the “War” .Still others exist because “they’re for your own good” or “for your safety” or, worst of all, “for the children.”
Under the Fourth Amendment, Americans are supposed to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects. Yet it has now been decided that being forced to show your bags, purses, and ID’s upon command is not unconstitutional. You can be arrested, as an American citizen, for failure to do so. Recently, the Miami police said they will stage random, high profile drills, including surrounding a building and checking everyone’s ID, to remind citizens of the need to be vigilant. Deputy police chief Frank Fernandez called it “an in-your-face strategy” that would keep al-Qaida and other groups off guard. The plan also called for posting uniformed and plainclothes officers on buses and trains, and for long-term surveillance operations. Fernandez told reporters that the department wants people to notice the increased security. He said, “We want that shock, we want that awe”.
Yet, there is no legal authority for the Police to randomly demand that anyone entering or leaving a bank, hotel, or any other public place, must “show their papers”. The courts have consistently upheld the absolute right of Americans to travel freely without interference or harassment, and walking is traveling, just like riding a horse or driving a car. Unlike a roadside stop, one does not need government authorization to walk down the sidewalk; that’s why it’s called a Drivers License, not a “government authorization to leave your house” license. Furthermore, randomly conducting sieges on public buildings and demanding to see a Person’s ID with no evidence linking them to terrorist or any other criminal activity, is completely Unconstitutional, and a clear Violation of the Fourth Amendment. The City of Miami has no compelling reason to demand it’s citizenry show identification papers while they practice a “show of force” to impress some would be terrorists.
Free Americans have a constitutional right to travel which is protected by the U.S. Constitution! Crandall v. Nevada (73 U.S. 6 Wall. 35, 49 - 1868) “We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states”. Worthy v. Herter (270 F.2d 905, 908, D.C.Cir. 1959) “The right to travel is a part of the right to liberty”. Kent v. Dulles (357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118 - 1958) “The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment”. United States v. Guest (383 U.S. 745, 757, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 1178 - 1966) “The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union”. Shapiro v. Thompson (394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1329 - 1969) “This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement”. Dunn v. Blumstein (405 U.S. 330, 339, 92 S.Ct. 995, 1001 -1972) “The right to travel is an ‘unconditional personal right’, a right whose exercise may not be conditioned”.
Article V: “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.
The Fifth Amendment Right to silence (a person cannot be forced to incriminate himself) was effectively taken from us with the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in the case of Hiibel v. Nevada.
And the right to private property was eviscerated by the Supreme Court ruling that determined eminent domain could be used to take property from one private entity to give to another richer private entity. On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses against their will for private development; thereby ending Private Property Rights in America. By their outrageous 5 to 4 decision in “Kelo vs. City of New London”, the Supreme Court has altered the intent and the meaning of the Constitution, and nullified the Public Use Clause. Government can now take private property for any use it describes as a “public purpose.” One of the most fundamental rights that this country was built upon has been pretty much obliterated! Article V states: “..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. The key term here is “public use”. There is a difference between “public use” and “public purpose”. The Constitution sets forth the legitimate purposes for which the government may own property. Article I, Section 8 states: “...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”. Moreover, the Fifth Amendment requires that just compensation be paid, when private property is taken for public use.
Article VI: “ In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”.
The Sixth Amendment Right to “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against you; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in your favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for defense” NO LONGER EXISTS, thanks to the phony “War on Terror” and the “Patriot Act” (I, II, and soon to be Permanent). The federal government need simply to label you a “terrorist” or “enemy combatant”, and All of your Sixth Amendment Rights magically disappear! NO more right to “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”; you can be held indefinitely, without ANY charges being brought, nor being informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against you. NO more right to “confront the witnesses against you”; the government can now use secret evidence at your trial (if you’re lucky enough to get one).
Article IX: “ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”.
There were those at the time the Constitution was written who were worried that there was no Bill of Rights. Others were concerned that writing a Bill of Rights might cause officials to someday determine that the only rights the people had were those that were written down. The latter is the short explanation for the existence of the Ninth Amendment which says that, just because it’s not written here, doesn’t mean the people don’t still have certain rights. Yet how many arguments have many of us heard from the mouths of our friends, neighbors, lawyers, and even politicians that include the words, "It’s not in the Constitution that you can..." The Ninth Amendment, at least for the purposes of actually protecting any rights, is almost certainly at least as damaged and gone as most of the others.
Article X: “ 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”.
The Tenth Amendment, of course, makes the condition of the Ninth look healthy. Under the clause of the Constitution that says Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, judges and Congressmen alike have usurped virtually unlimited powers. Our First President, George Washington warned of this very scenario. In his Farewell Address, on Amending the Constitution, he said: "If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
As for the wording of the Tenth Amendment, I believe the wording in the Articles of Confederation conveyed it’s intended meaning much better: Article II: Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.
and the terrorists hate us for our freedom lol