Buckeye Firearms Association
National Precinct Activists
The Ohio Liberty CouncilAnother great learning video by School House Rock on the Pre-amble of Constitution. I have not seen this in years and it reminds me how simple yet complex our founding documents are – and how important the basic principles are to our lives today. Take a couple of minutes to remind yourself that this is important information to know!
|
||||
|
 
|
This School House Rock video is a great analogy to how the 3 rings are like the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of our government. It is a great analogy showing how it is supposed to work. However, when all three branches are on the same side ideologically, then that’s when the Circus short circuits. Time to go into the Way-Back Time Machine Mr. Peabody. For those old enough this should bring back some memories… Just thought it would be a fun look at the process to help educate us a little bit.
UNCOVERING THE POWER OF THE CONSTITUTION… A feeling of helplessness and despair seem to be covering the nation. We sit and watch a government that seems to be out of control. They spend like there are no consequences, with a national debt that is unsustainable. They take over banks, financial institutions and private businesses, regulate salaries of private individuals, weaken our national defense, and then have the nerve to call concerned citizens terrorists and angry mobs. You may have called your Congressmen a few times, but they don’t seem to be listening. Now you just scream at the television set. That’s just about as effective as the phone calls. You want to do something, but you just don’t know what you can do, so you just turn off the television, roll over and go to sleep.
There is something you can do! “In order for a free people to prevail and enjoy the fruits of this thing that is nothing less than a miracle [The Constitution] We must dutify ourselves in the preserving of it by educating all the common people of the intent and wonder of it.” – James Madison Classes start January 18th at 6:30 at St. Teresa’s Activity Center in Cadiz, Ohio. Please see events for syllabus information. The suggested textbook is The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World by W. Cleon Skousen. You may purchase this for $6.50 at the first class. You can learn more by visiting their website at http://www.eocc-09.ning.com
© Mark Pitrone; May 7, 2004 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. As the title says, the 2nd Amendment is the keeper of our liberty in these United States of America. George Washington said, “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress) tionary that, more than any other, standardized the American language. We find among others the following definitions for ‘keep’;
“To hold; to retain in one’s power or possession…, To preserve from falling or from danger; to protect; to guard or sustain…, To tend; to feed; to pasture; as, to keep a flock of sheep or a herd of cattle…, To practice; to do or perform; to obey; to observe in practice; not to neglect or violate; as, to keep the laws, statutes or commandments of God…, To maintain.” It is in all those senses that I mean the 2nd amendment is the keeper of liberty, for without the right to keep and bear Arms America would long since have fallen into an abject despotism that England’s king George III could only dream about. As we investigate the amendment, let’s ‘keep’ this assertion that the 2nd amendment ‘keeps’ our liberty in mind. Thomas Jefferson said, “On every occasion…[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (June 12 1823, Letter to William Johnson). Would that our Supreme Court justices were the Constitutional scholars that Jefferson was (or even that they consider themselves to be). Noah Webster is counted among the founders of our country, and his 1828 dictionary is to my knowledge the best resource at our disposal to determine the meanings of the words used by our founding fathers. Let’s use it to see what our founders meant as we examine the amendment clause by clause. What did the founders mean when they said “A well regulated Militia?” This has been the clause that gun control activists have most mishandled and twisted from its intended meaning. They assume the 21st C. Washington, DC meaning of ‘regulate’, to pass laws to govern. Webster’s 1828 has this for “REG’ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order…” So a Militia that has been put in good order is one that practices its duties ‘regularly’, i.e.; it drills and trains as a unit to standardize (makes and adjusts its rules pertaining to) its methods and forms. These same gun-control activists insist that the ‘Militia’ is the State’s National Guard. But is that what the founders thought? According to W1828, “MILI’TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The Militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.” In colonial and revolutionary times, in fact until shortly before WWII when the draft was initiated in preparation for war, local Militias were the backbone of America’s defenses. The colonists who fought to escape the tyrannical rule of England’s George III were, in large part, church congregations, led in drill and eventually into battle by their own pastors. In fact, it was still a law on the books of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as late as 1990 (though never enforced) that all men were to carry their weapons with them to church on Sunday so they could practice close-order drill between services. Regular troops numbers were kept low because there was a general fear of a large standing army. Alexander Hamilton said, “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29) “Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” (Id) {Responding to the claim that the Militia itself could threaten liberty} “There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the Militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery).” (Id) It would seem that Hamilton was afraid that a large standing army might move against the country in a coup d’etat, or the administration might use the standing army to infringe or abridge the rights of the people, as was the norm in Europe, and that the Militia would be the thing to stand in its way. In relation to the first 2 quotes by Hamilton, until the 1990′s there was an Army run program called ‘The Office of Civilian Marksmanship’ which was headquartered at Camp Perry, Ohio. The national marksmanship contest was held there yearly. The purpose of the program was to equip the States’ Militias with serviceable weapons and the training to be effective in battle in the event the Army needed to call up the Militia in time of war. Until it’s disbanding the OCM provided an M1 Garand to anyone who would agree to spend 2 weeks/year at Camp Perry to train in it’s proper care, feeding and use. President Clinton disbanded the OCM and then started to use the Army to police not only hotspots overseas, but hotspots right here in America (Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidians jump immediately to mind – Gen. Wesley Clark was the CO at Fort Hood, TX, the source of the tanks that gassed, burned and tore the place up) in direct violation of the Posse Commutatis Act. It seems, in light of the disbanding of the OCM, that well trained civilian Militias were formidable to the aspirations of the President. I guess he never saw Hamilton’s third quote above. The citizen Militia, as the citizen legislature in 1776 (see the Declaration of Independence), is formidable to tyrants only. A Constitutional Militia is comprised of every man able to bear arms into battle. And in order to be well regulated it must have weapons of the same grade and capability as the regular Army, be trained in that weapon’s proper care and use and attend regular training, as IN THE PAST was done by the Office of Civilian Marksmanship. The next phrase is, “being necessary to the security of a free State”. I think the salient word in this phrase is ‘free.’ W1828 says this: FREE, n. [Heb. See Frank.] 1. Being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral; a word of general application to the body, the will or mind, and to corporations. 2. In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people. 3. Instituted by a free people, or by consent or choice of those who are to be subjects, and securing private rights and privileges by fixed laws and principles; not arbitrary or despotic; as a free constitution or government. (emphasis added) The definition we’re interested in here is the 2nd. A free State is not enslaved or a vassal to any other government. And the founders’ intent in the 2nd Amendment was to keep the States free of the general government. Somehow we’ve gotten the whole system that our fathers gave us completely backwards, where the States and people of the States are vassals of the general government rather than its creator and thereby its master. And much of the blame for this is in the unConstitutional gun control laws of the 20th century, sold to us with a slick marketing campaign perpetrated upon the people by the government controlled schools and major mass media. The last defining clause in #2 above is the most important in the founding revolutionary sense, “not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord”, because that is EXACTLY what the majority of the people of America have become – subjects to the arbitrary will of the President’s Executive orders and decision directives – and it matters not which President or from which Party. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al ‘went to the mattresses’ over less egregious offences. They set up a nation of self-governing people. The people were to govern themselves using as their rule the principles found in the 10 Commandments. American Republicanism (NOT the political Party, but the general sense of the term republican) has been termed ‘an experiment in self-government.’ As long as we were true to the founding principles, we were the envy of the world. One reason there have been usurpations by our general government in the last century is its nearly total disregard of the 2nd amendment RIGHT to keep and to bear arms and its nearly total commitment to reduce that right to impotence and then remove it altogether. The States are no longer free of the general government because the people are no longer free of it. They have accepted the ‘free lunch’ of government paid (actually taxpayer paid) ‘welfare’ and ‘personal safety’ over the free exercise of God-given rights. Ben Franklin was right when he said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.) And so we have neither, in part because our people have not bothered to learn what the Constitution says regarding what ensures their freedom, the 2nd amendment. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is our next phrase. The declaration of Independence says We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… It is these unalienable rights that the Bill of Rights sought to protect from the general government. The Declaration of Independence says that the people were endowed with rights from YHWH, not privileges from Washington, DC. W1828 says about ENDOW’MENT, n. The act of settling dower on a woman, or of settling a fund or permanent provision for the support of a parson or vicar, or of a professor, &c. 1. That which is bestowed or settled on; property, fund or revenue permanently appropriated to any object; as the endowments of a church, of a hospital, or of a college. 2. That which is given or bestowed on the person or mind by the creator; gift of nature; any quality or faculty bestowed by the creator. Natural activity of limbs is an endowment of the body; natural vigor of intellect is an endowment of the mind. Chatham and Burke, in Great Britain, and Jan, Ellsworth and Hamilton, in America, possessed uncommon endowments of mind (emphasis added). It is this endowment from our Creator that makes the rights unalienable. W1828 says UNA’LIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights. (emphasis added) ALIE’NE, v.t. [L. alieno.]1. To transfer title or property to another; to sell. Our rights, then, are our property, which, like the inheritance of the Israelites, cannot legally be removed or transferred from the owner/inheritor, even if he wishes to sell it or transfer it to another. We may choose to not exercise our endowment, but it cannot be removed for any reason. No matter how many laws the general or State government passes to constrain our right to keep and bear Arms, all such laws are unConstitutional. From the ‘Citizen’s Handbook” published by the Fully Informed Jury Association: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442 (Supreme Court precedent) “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them;” Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. (Supreme Court precedent) No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, Section 256 “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.” I think that makes the point. No need to beat a dead horse (though there are quite a few more whips and blunt instruments at my disposal). Suffice it to say that your right to keep and bear Arms, as your rights to trial by jury and privacy in your person, papers, property and effects, et al, is non-transferable and non-unbridgeable. The last phrase in the amendment is, “shall not be infringed”. Infringed? That is a strange word to our 21st CE century ears. When I see the word infringe I think of those buckskin coats that were all the rage in the late 60′s and early 70′s with the fringes on the sleeves. Those fringes were not essential to the garment, being strictly ornamental (at that time). They were useless, but they looked cool. Any law that would lessen or abridge the right to keep and bear Arms would be similar to trimming away the fringes of the coat and destroying the property of the individual. Government isn’t even allowed to touch the fringes, the most incidental and inconsequential feature, of this right, much less the essence of it. But what did the word mean to Madison, Hamilton, et al? W1828 has this: INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj’. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See Break.] 1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done. 2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law. 3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.] (emphasis added) The fact that the general government infringes our right to keep and bear Arms is evident in the unConstitutional laws it passes and in itsneglect to enforce this amendment when it becomes necessary (as happens when any police agency or government bureaucrat deprives a law-abiding citizen of his right to self-defense or of his liberty for having exercised that right). It is up to we, the people, to exercise our rights or lose them. The right to keep and bear Arms is under vicious attack by the socialistic Communist (Socialist Democrat) and Fascist (Socialist Republican) legislators (mostly BAR members – ‘esquires’ [a title of nobility] of the British Accreditation Registry) in our general, State and local governments. They fear an armed populace for the same reason that we’ve never been invaded by a foreign army. How do you mancipate (W1828 enslave) 80 million people who hold over 200 million weapons to defend themselves? They need to get the guns to totally subjugate us. Until then, they have to rely on our voluntary compliance with draconian laws, while hiding their true nature behind familiar labels, like Republican and Democrat. (Jefferson, who was a member of the Democratic Republican Party, would cringe at the use of each word to describe today’s major parties.) Americans need to emancipate their minds from the chains into which they’ve been placed by the federal education system and THINK about what their political ‘leaders’ say and how they act in relation to their words. Does your representative, senator or President say he is pro-2nd amendment and then vote to take your guns from you? This is a fundamental issue relating to YOUR FREEDOM and Liberty. Don’t just brush it aside as if it didn’t matter. Too few people realize the precarious nature of our liberty. Too many take their liberty for granted. This is a very dangerous attitude, because those who are in power don’t like the limitations the Constitution has placed on them, and will do whatever it takes to remove the shackles our founders imposed on them (President Obama said the Constitution is a ‘negative’ document, telling the government what it cannot do, that must be made more ‘positive). We need to be vigilant. We need to pay close attention to their every word, take heed to their every vote, watch their every move. If we don’t the America our founders gave us will be gone forever. And it will have been our own faults.
©2003 Mark Pitrone Article the third [Amendment 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.” Much has been said about the first amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America. Many have been wrong. Oh, I suppose everyone who’s ever written on it thinks he has the only correct outlook towards the subject, but most of the commentators I’ve read have never looked at the historical context of the Article. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “On every occasion…[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (June 12 1823, Letter to William Johnson). One must look at the Declaration of Independence to get the context of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Most commentators just look at what the Supreme Court has opined on the subject, never even considering that the Supremes are overstepping their Constitutionally granted authority every time they interpret our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Nor do they usually look to see what the words our founders used actually meant when they were written – English is a living language, after all, and some of the meanings have changed. Let’s look at Amendment 1 clause by clause for its grammatical and historical context. “Congress shall make no law…” Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case has interpreted this to mean that NO government at any level may make a law in these regards. But what did the founders mean when they said Congress? When the Declaration was signed they meant when the states sent their representatives to gather for a purpose of mutual interest. From the Declaration: “We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, ”The American Dictionary of the English Language”, the work that standardized American English (hereinafter referred to as Webster’s 1828), has this to say about: “CONGRESS, n. [L., to come together; to go or step; a step. See Grade and Degree.] 1. A meeting of individuals; an assembly of envoys, commissioners, deputies, &c., particularly a meeting of the representatives of several courts, to concert measures for their common good, or to adjust their mutual concerns.” Did you notice that the representatives were in ‘Congress, assembled?’ Congress merely meant a meeting of mutual self-interest to the several states. That was also all it meant to the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. To extend to the governments of the states, counties, cities and townships those restrictions that were placed on the general government is to place strictures where the people and the state governments never meant to place them. Therefore, Constitutionally, the fight in Alabama over the placement of the 10 Commandments monument was moot. The Congress didn’t place the monument. The judge did. He was within his authority to do so and the Federal Courts should have stayed out of the fray, as they had no Constitutional jurisdiction. “…respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …” Webster’s 1828 says this respecting: “RESPECT’ING, ppr. Regarding; having regard to; relating to. This word, like concerning, has reference to a single word or to a sentence. In the sentence, “his conduct respecting us is commendable,” respecting has reference to conduct. But when we say, “respecting a further appropriation of money, it is to be observed, that the resources of the country are inadequate,” respecting has reference to the whole subsequent clause or sentence.” So Congress could legislate NOTHING that would relate to an establishment of religion. What is meant by the word ‘establishment?’ In most instances it means to found, ratify or ordain a thing for use. Webster’s 1828 indeed uses these very words to describe the literal meaning of the term. But further down the list of definitions is this rather interesting entry: “6. The episcopal form of religion, so called in England.” Webster’s further defines “EPIS’COPAL, a. Belonging to or vested in bishops or prelates…” Since the clause refers to religion, I would think the only definition having to do with religion is probably the one the founders intended. They told Congress that they could not set up any religion with an episcopal form of government; i.e., an hierarchical government by decree from above. In other words, the government was not to create a state religion that made pronouncements as from on high, as was the case in ALL of Europe, and especially in England. Remembering that Webster’s 1828 defined American English and that Mr. Webster was among the founders and from their era, we can assume that his definitions are almost, if not quite, exactly what the founders meant in their choice of terms. With that in mind, look at this rather lengthy entry for “RELIGION, n. relij’on. [L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.] 1. Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man’s obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion. 2. Religion, as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1.27. 3. Religion, as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance of the duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will. Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of one system, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law. Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. 4. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, &c. as well as of the christian religion. We speak of false religion, as well as of true religion. 5. The rites of religion; in the plural.” (emphasis added) Notice that the first 3 definitions of religion are obviously speaking of the Judeo-Christian religion, or, at least, its core tenets. This is further proven by the reference to the other great religions in definition 4. Notice also that the implication, by like placement in parallel sentences, is that the other religions are ‘false religion’, while the Christian religion is by implication ‘true religion’. Pop culture notwithstanding, that is the Constitutional sense of religion. “… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …” Congress can also make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So in a church setting anything goes, as long as it is within the tenets of that religion. While I seriously doubt that any Christian denomination would espouse such a practice, if a church wanted to use peyote or methamphetamine in its worship, the congregants are completely within their rights and the general government has no say in the matter unless their ‘free exercise’ infringes some other right held by another person. Also, in reference to free exercise, notice that conspicuous by its absence is any reference to public officials making religious statements, or the Constitutional prohibition of same. Even our Constitutionally challenged Supreme Court has held that private individuals can, of right, pray in public, even in state sanctioned affairs like public high school graduations. Of course, the high schools have now taken to censoring the valedictorian and salutatorian speeches for political correctness, including religious references. But let a public official try praying or make reference to the Bible, and listen to the howls of intolerance and hatred being spewed by the intolerant hate police. This prohibition on public officials use of religious references has been created ex nihilo by the same Constitutionally challenged Supremes, even as they’ve been misguided down the false path by spurious and specious arguments of the aforementioned intolerant hate police. “…or abridging the freedom of speech, …” The question arises, “To what speech are they referring?” I believe it refers to political speech, not that we are free to say anything we please at any time we please to. We are not free to say something that would put other people in danger or that is intended to incite a riot or other such thing injurous to society. Nor are we given carte blanche to lie or slander someone, as our political and sometimes our religious leaders have done. The Declaration refers to the abridgement of free speech: “He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people,” and, “In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” Actually, the Declaration, in its entirety, is an exercise of free speech that was unheard of in English culture. As Ben Franklin said at the signing they had better all hang together, or most assuredly they would all hang separately. No one could talk to a king that way and get away with it. There was no truly free speech in England. And it’s getting to be that way here in America. It is almost a capital offence to speak out against the war in Iraq, or the President, or the draconian steps the general government has taken to provide a bit of ‘Homeland Security.” If you don’t agree, you are potentially a terrorist. George III is salivating as he looks up from Hell for the power that the Executive has usurped from the Congress and the people. Our free speech rights have certainly been abridged. Webster’s 1828 says this about: “ABRIDGE’, v.t. abridj’, [G. short, or its root, from the root of break or a verb of that family.]2. To lessen; to diminish; as to abridge labor; to abridge power of rights. 3. To deprive; to cut off from; followed by of; as to abridge one of his rights, or enjoyments.” Political correctness is all about abridging free speech. “…or of the press; …” Congress can’t legislate away the freedom of the press. And they haven’t done so. Instead, they’ve created a press kennel that hangs around the legislative and executive dining rooms whining and begging for the crumbs that fall from their master’s tables. Most major media reporters have lost touch with the term ‘investigative reporting.’ They hang around waiting for the handouts and ‘leaks’ that come their ways at the most opportune (for the politician) times, and print the ‘spin’ on the news as if it were the truth. In biblical terminology ‘spin’ is pronounced ‘wicked’, meaning a bit of truth is twisted like a candle wick. The only way to get unadulterated truth anymore is to carefully surf the web’s alternative news and commentary sites – like Liberty-Rising.com – and gleaning the truth from the ‘spin’. In other words, you have to do the work, because the major media outlets are too lazy or too dependent on government handouts to do any of it for you. “… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, …” Congress can’t tell you that you can’t gather peacefully to protest, pray or otherwise receive public reinforcement of your beliefs or support for your cause. If they do they violate this Amendment. In short, these last 3 clauses state that the government can’t tell you what to say or keep you from saying it in whatever venue you decide to say it, between you and one other or between you and a million others, in print or on the street or in the airwaves or any other venue. Of course, don’t try to tell that to the peaceful protesters who gathered to protest abortion and to pray for the Constitutionally challenged Supreme Court Justices on the night before their new session began. There were numerous arrests for the crime of carrying a protest sign. In fact, the USA PATRIOT and Homeland Security Acts have provisions to make a gathering of more than 2-3 people illegal. Both are blatantly unconstitutional, but the average American is too busy watching ‘reality’ shows and ‘Law and Order’ on TV to care. All we want is to be entertained. Thinking is too much like work. “…and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Webster’s 1828 says, “PETI’TION, n. [L. petitio, from peto, to ask, properly to urge or press.] 2. A formal request or supplication, verbal or written; particularly, a written supplication from an inferior to a superior, either to a single person clothed with power, or to a legislative or other body, soliciting some favor, grant, right or mercy. 3. The paper containing a supplication or solicitation. Much of the time of our legislative bodies is consumed in attending to private petitions. The speaker’s table is often loaded with petitions (author’s note – remember this was in 1828, not today). Petitions to the king of Great Britain must contain nothing reflecting on the administration.” Congress has never taken away your right to circulate a petition, or to petition them or the executive. Indeed, I have seen and even signed numerous petitions to congress, presidents and the Supremes over the years. Have you ever written your Congressman, or phoned his office to advise him of your wishes on a particular vote or issue? That is a petition. However, do you really think you or I sway them to do something with which they don’t agree, or which they didn’t manipulate you and me into petitioning for in the first place? I have written my Congressman at least 30 times in the last 2 years. He is always good about returning my correspondence. When he agrees, he is very bold in his statements as to the righteousness of his position. When he disagrees he mealy-mouths his way around telling me how he’ll vote on the issue. My petitions mean nothing to him, really. All they tell him is how he’ll probably do in the next election. He thinks. Let’s see what the Declaration had to say about these last 4 clauses; free speech, press, assembly and redress: “He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world: In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Well, nothing there relates to the press, but connections can be made to all the rest. The first Amendment, as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights, was included to make our general government incapable of becoming another despotism like we’d just left. The fathers had the Declaration in the room with them for referral the whole time. They wanted to be sure to address all the wickedness of the British monarch and ensure that no such thing would happen here. I think they would be shocked to see what we’ve allowed our general government to become, a two-bit despotism that George III could only dream about. “We were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights” (see my article on that subject), and a few of them are enumerated. But that enumeration does not proscribe any other rights, and neither can any legislation by any governmental body. Rights are given by our Creator and can’t be abridged, infringed or in any way diminished or aliened by anyone but the grantor – our Creator. We created the government and therefore it derives its powers and rights from us. It has no jurisdiction over sovereign citizens or states that those citizens and states didn’t grant, and which those citizens and states can’t repeal. It’s time we did. (This editorial is copyrighted under the purview of “Liberty-Rising” and the author. The material in this article may Not be reproduced or re-printed, as a whole or in part, without the express, written permission of “Liberty-Rising” and/or the author.) |
 |
||
|
Copyright © 2012 The Ohio Free Press - All Rights Reserved - Posts Feed |
||||
If you have ever been to a circus, a 3 ring circus, you know that there is a lot of action going on all at the same time. People on the trapeze swinging, the lion tamer keeping the animals at bay, the clowns running around clowning. It sounds just sort of like our Federal government. Unfortunately though, in today’s reality it really is like a 3 ring circus gone amuck. However, that’s now how the founding fathers envisioned it.
Coalition Begins Initiation of Constitutional Amendment to End Forced Unionism in Ohio
Why we can’t trust the Mainstream Media
Senate Vote on DOMA Set for Thursday
Ohio Tells Obama He Can Keep His HealthCare Plan
Cain Supporters Strike Back with New Ad
Ohio’s Issue 3 Health Care Amendment and what is really in it?
Why Senate Bill 5 Will Help Taxpayers – Or What is Wrong With Our System?
VIPR Searches and the American Citizen: ‘Dominate. Intimidate. Control.’