Posted on 09/13/2025 1:46:00 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Free Government is that happy condition wherein government respects and protects the unalienable, Natural Rights of the nation, and makes no law without its consent.
Our Bill of Rights actually grants nothing, but rather serves to recognize God-given individual and societal rights.
But rights don’t defend themselves. James Madison famously regarded Bills of Rights as mere “parchment barriers” easily breached by ambitious men. To keep them in force requires institutions designed for their defense, and an active citizenry covetous of liberty.
So, how many are actually respected and protected by government? How near or distant is free government?
I posit that undefended rights have been seriously eroded, and will all but disappear without relentless advocacy from private groups or public institutions.
1st Amendment – It is certainly under duress. In recent polls a disturbing percentage of college students would restrain “hurtful” speech. Under government pressure, Leftist media including Facebook and Twitter have silenced some conservative voices. Lois Lerner abused her office at the IRS to do the same. Major corporate media used to defend free speech. Today, they work with government to stifle a basic liberty.
Christianity is under assault. The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God are largely disregarded as bakers and religious orders are forced to violate their beliefs. A phony “wall of separation” was erected by scotus between the civil society and any governing institution.
On the other hand, militant Islam is ascendant. It is protected at every turn by a shady group, CAIR, which has enormous influence in the Obama government. The continuance of Christianity in America requires equivalent support and promotion.
2nd Amendment – Private ownership of guns would have been banned long ago were it not for the NRA and other gun rights groups.
3rd Amendment – As of yet, our rulers have not thought of quartering troops in our homes. The third amendment is safe.
4th Amendment – While our persons are mostly secure from unreasonable searches, our papers, finances and effects are generally open to the government. Banking/medical transactions and records are largely open to, and used by the government as it wishes. Apple is courageously fighting a court order to develop software that will degrade personal privacy.
5th Amendment – Portions are under threat. On the bright side, grand juries still serve to protect capital crime suspects from inflamed mobs. Unfortunately, certain crimes perceived as violating social justice can be subject to two trials. Defendants found innocent of a fuzzy hate crime at a state trial can, and have been, prosecuted by federal courts. Scotus’ Kelo decision eviscerated the centuries’ old concept of eminent domain.
6th & 7th Amendments – All well and good. The grand jury process of the 5th, and the entirety of the 6th and 7th have been secured by generations of legal scholars and state bar associations.
8th Amendment – Despite the unease of changing majority factions on the scotus, convicted murderers would be wise to fear for their lives.
9th Amendment –At his circus-like confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary committee in 1987, the eminent Judge Robert Bork was famously uncomfortable at best with the 9th. He understandably did not wish to witness a multitude of judges declaring a greater multitude of unenumerated personal and societal rights. Yet leftist judges just cannot help themselves. For instance, the Obergefell v. Hodges decision alone will be forever remembered as a general assault on Natural Law and the 9th Amendment, as well as denial of the right of the people to republican, free government.
10th Amendment – Gone. Without the presence of the states in the senate to secure the interests of their people and member republics, all powers are collapsing into a central, consolidated government. Repeal of the 17th Amendment is essential to the restoration of free government.
Strictly speaking, the First Amendment says that CONGRESS shall make no law. So, the states (per the 10th) could establish some restrictions. But, by convention, it was decided long ago, that the First Amendment covered all government: Federal, state, local.
Oddly enough, the Second Amendment does not mention Congress. The Second is a sweeping statement that covers everything imaginable and says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. By anyone. And, somehow, it was decided a long time ago that the Feds can infringe, the states can infringe, and the local governments can infringe.
Just remember, the Declaration of Independence upon which our Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land stands, says that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty, and Free pursuits.
Our rights do NOT come from Gov’t they come from God and our rights pre-exists gov’t which is made to SECURE those rights.
So the first ten amendments are not a bill granting rights to us (”bill of rights”). They are a confirmation and securing of certain rights that already belong to us.
Good point regarding the 1A. Agree. Scotus unconstitutionally incorporated the Bill of Rights.
Courts are supposed to interpret law NOT make law!
I am to this day confused. A judge has no power,
unless someone does his bidding.
Who is the problem? the judge or the people that
kill, imprison, and destroy on his decisions?
Seems to me that Democrats hide behind a
Democrat judge to all our loss of free
and open thoughts!
Most of those rights are in the State Constitutions. Each state was told to write a constitution. The Federal Bill of Rights just took it to include the future “We The People”.
Tim Kaine (D) comes to mind.
I’ve been putting pressure on his call takers for 10 days.
The rapid and dramatic news cycle has saved him.
I imagine that if someone is using or trying to use their "right to keep and bear arms" to infringe on my right to life, I, as "anyone", will infringe on their right to keep and bear arms.
So many stress "shall not be infringed" without adequate attention to "what" shall not be infringed, said what being a right. So start by defining the noun "right".
“Our rights do NOT come from Gov’t they come from God and our rights pre-exists gov’t which is made to SECURE those rights.”
From Amendment 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,...”
Please explain how that right “pre-exists gov’t” since it seems to depend on the existence of government.
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.US Const., Amendment I.
You can only "abridge" a right the already exists.
I asked you to address the Sixth Amendment, not the first, but since you did and you wrote:
“You can only “abridge” a right the already exists” and the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law...abridging…the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, please explain how the right of the people to petition the government can pre-exist the government.
And my Sixth Amendment request remains open.
.
The issue to which you responded was my statement that the first ten amendments are not a bill of rights.
The rights most mentioned and thus most important are in the first and second amendments both of which say the right cannot be “abridged” or “infringed” because the right preexisted.
So you need to address that first before we can move on to the sixth amendment.
“The issue to which you responded was my statement that the first ten amendments are not a bill of rights.”
I believe the issue to which I responded was your all inclusive statement that “our rights pre-exists gov’t”.
“So you need to address that first before we can move on to the sixth amendment.”
I don’t need to do that to address your all inclusive statement that “our rights pre-exists gov’t”. (And my problem with it is that it is all inclusive.) All I need to do is show one instance that puts your statement in doubt, and I believe I’ve shown two. And I didn’t even declare you to be wrong, I requested you explain, which you don’t seem to be able to do.
If you want to justify your all inclusive statement that “our rights pre-exists gov’t” by starting with the First Amendment and proceeding from there: go for it.
The basis of my rationale is the Declaration of Independence, upon which the Constitution is built, which declares that we are
endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Government are instituted among men...Declaration of Independence, Parag. 2.
"Endowed by our creator" means we were born with rights and gov'ts come later to "SECURE" those rights that preexisted gov't.
Have at it.
“You are the one challenging my premise that the first ten amendments are no a “bill of rights”...”
Again, I believe I initially responded to your all inclusive statement that “our rights pre-exists gov’t”, not to your “premise that the first ten amendments are no a “bill of rights”, which I don’t recall that you had stated before my initial response.
Instead of responding to my requests you keep sidestepping and trying to change the terms of my request, as so many do when they don’t have a proper response, yet you may have inadvertently provided a response when you wrote: “Endowed by our creator” means we were born with rights and gov’ts come later to “SECURE” those rights that preexisted gov’t.” because in that statement you seem to be referring back to the unalienable rights addressed in the Declaration of Independence which you had just quoted.
If you’re only saying unalienable rights pre-exist government, I don’t have a problem. But you didn’t say it that way to start, you made the all inclusive statement that “our rights pre-exists gov’t”.
I think we are done here, although you will probably want to have the last word, to which I may or may not respond.
I am saying that the first ten amendment are not a “bill of rights” because unalienable rights pre-exist government.
How’s that?
The 10th Amendment essentially states, if we forgot anything, you can't do that either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.