Bill of Rights Enforcement!

lneilsmith.com ^ | 2/21/04 | L. Niel Smith

[tpaine]

By its nature, the Bill of Rights is (and was always intended to be) the highest law of the land, superseding every other regulation, law, statue, ordinance, decree, or amendment presently (or ever) put in force.          

The Bill of Rights is "true for all men and all times" -- meaning that it's as valid and necessary today as when it was written.         

 While the body of the Constitution, as well as most subsequent amendments, function as a charter for strong central government that the Federalists insisted on, the price they willingly paid (the price demanded by Anti-Federalists) was not just a laundry list of things the government would generously allow people to do, but absolute prohibitions -- stringent limits -- imposed on what government would be allowed to do, written in plain language, meant to protect certain rights each of us possesses simply by virtue of being born a human being.          

The Bill of Rights is our property, collectively and individually, not the government's. It may not be interpreted away, amended, or repealed, wholly or in part, without negating the entire Constitution from which government derives its authority. In short, if the heirs of the Federalists renege (as they have with increasing frequency and brutality) on any part of their bargain with us, the heirs of the Anti-Federalists, then the whole deal is off

.          

No Bill of Rights, no Constitution.          

No Constitution, no government.         

 As the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights must be enforced. Any official, appointed or elected at any level of government and guilty of any violation of an individual's rights under the first ten Amendments, must be arrested, tried, and punished. The highest -- the only -- priority of public officials must be to enforce the Bill of Rights, and that's the only criterion by which they should be judged. The same "Bill of Rights Enforcement" policy would shut down all government activity, and nullify all laws and regulations, not specifically authorized under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.         

 Anyone who encounters (or professes to encounter) any difficulty understanding the meaning or intention of any portion of the Bill of Rights should ask himself the following question about America's Founders:         

 You've just fought the most powerful and ruthless government on the planet for thirteen long, miserable years and finally (more or less to your surprise) won your independence. The last thing in the world you want is to create another government just like the one you just defeated, or to fall again -- or let your children or grandchildren fall again -- under the boot-heel of tyranny.          

Now: what do you want the Bill of Rights to mean?

         Would you write a Second Amendment (for example) reserving the right to own and carry weapons to state governments and their militias -- rather than individuals?

L. Neil Smith, author

[sinclair]

unCivil disobediance will work a lot faster

[Clint Williams]

So--how do we correct it?

Water the roots of the tree of liberty.

[basil]

I can't fault anything you have written.

Do you think there are enough people in this country today who would stand with us?

[StonyBurk]

I believe Judg eBrevard Hand made a compelling arguement
that the 14th Amendment is questionable at best.But certainly cannot be included nor compared to -neither
does it -nor should it subvert nor amend the Bill of Rights. Modern court constructions or the convienence of
"how the courts have interpreted the constitution for years"
ought not be confused with the constitutional supreme law
of the land.IMO

[tpaine]

sinclair wrote:
unCivil disobediance will work a lot faster.

______________________________________


The authoritarian socialists live for excuses to use military power against crackpot 'militas'..

[tpaine]

I see a lot here at FR..
Not as many as there used to be, but many are still here.
It's been said that only about a third of the population actively supported the revolution.. That's all you would need today, imo..

[tpaine]

I would add the 14th amendment, Sec 1, to the first ten amendments as "the highest law of the land, superseding every other regulation, law, statue, ordinance, decree, or amendment presently (or ever) put in force."
To me these 11 amendments -- "may not be interpreted away, amended, or repealed, wholly or in part, without negating the entire Constitution from which government derives its authority."

I believe Judg eBrevard Hand made a compelling arguement that the 14th Amendment is questionable at best. But certainly cannot be included nor compared to -neither does it -nor should it, subvert nor amend the Bill of Rights.

As I wrote to paulsen just above, -- " Most of the founders wanted ALL levels of government to be bound by our BOR's. A few Senators blocked a specific amendment to that effect, but the supremacy clause still applied to the general concept.
When that basic concept was 'over-ruled' by the Barron decision [in an effort to avert civil war], - the 14th ended the controversy.. Original intent was restored.. [for awhile]
Now here we are, back again, fighting to keep our individual rights from being violated by prohibitionists/socialists.

Modern court constructions or the convienence of "how the courts have interpreted the constitution for years" ought not be confused with the constitutional supreme law of the land.IMO.

I don't see upholding our rights to life, liberty, & property as 'interpretation'.. -- Do you?

[robertpaulsen]

I agree.

Strange that it would have been phrased that way. Wikipedia.org is usually better than that.

[robertpaulsen]

"Most of the people wanted ALL levels of government to be bound by our BOR's ... but the supremacy clause still applied to the general concept. "

You are just flat-out making things up now. The supremacy clause had NOTHING to do with applying any of the BOR to the states.

The people did NOT want all levels of government to be bound by the BOR in the US Constitution. Just the opposite, and that's why the amendment that forbade states from interfering with the rights of the people was thrown out.

The states were obsessed with their independence. They had their own state constitutions already in place to deal with the rights of the people in their respective states.

I'm done with this. I've given you cite after cite supporting my statemenrt. You've given me some crap about the Supremacy Clause. That dog don't hunt -- shoot it or sell it.

[StonyBurk]

"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation.In that sense alone it is the legitimate
Constitution.(James Madison to Henry Lee,June25,1824
"the Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were were used intheir normal
and ordinary ,as distinguished from technical meaning;where
the intention is clear there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition"Joseph Story
Martin v.Hunters' Lessee Let me see now the 14th amendment
was drafted in 1868--it was not until 1940 that any court
desired to bastardize the constitution and Bill of Rights.
How do you explain the void?

[tpaine]

I'm done with this.

Thank you for admitting you have no rebuttal. Your unsupported repetitive denials are boring.

I've given you cite after cite supporting my statemenrt.

Dream on.

You've given me some crap about the Supremacy Clause.

Our Constitution/BOR's is the "supreme law of the Land".. Plain as day..

That dog don't hunt -- shoot it or sell it.

Cute paulsen, but no cigar..

[basil]

A third of today's population would indeed be enough to do it, I think Especially since this 1/3 is probably armed!

[tpaine]

Let me see now the 14th amendment
was drafted in 1868--it was not until 1940 that any court desired to bastardize the constitution and Bill of Rights.
How do you explain the void?
-SB-

_______________________________________



What "void"?
The 14th was violated by everyone, feds/states/localities, from the date it was ratified..

In any case, thats a weird question.. Do you consider the 14th to be somehow 'evil'? Many statists do: --

The Squalid 14th Amendment [Free Republic]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm

[tpaine]

Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights
Jon Roland 2000 Sep. 24

The main clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


This seemingly simple language has given rise to endless controversy over its interpretation. Beginning with the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court has decided cases involving the Fourteenth by selectively invoking only the most minimal and restrictive rights needed to decide each case, and never declaring in dictum that the Fourteenth protects all rights recognized by the Constitution. This has led to the doctrine of selective incorporation of the Bill of rights, most of which have eventually been included in the protection, but a few of which have not.

Two of the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights that have not been "incorporated" are the right to keep and bear arms of the Second Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment right, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, ...."

The Supreme Court has avoided taking any cases that would require it to rule on the right to keep and bear arms, but it did take a case, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), in which it held that a state was not required to indict by grand jury. The issues were set forth well by Justice Harlan in Hurtado, whose dissenting opinion is correct. Unfortunately, the majority did not agree with him. The state was California, and although grand juries in California still have the power of indictment, most crimes are prosecuted upon an information, which is only a finding by a lower magistrate. On the basis of this decision, a few states have even eliminated the grand jury system altogether.

This statements of the Fourteenth were adopted for a reason. They were not without force and effect. They were intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
Second, "immunities" includes all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

The framers of the Fourteenth used "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from nonvested rights of business.
If there is any futher doubt as to what the framers of the Fouteenth meant by their words, a book by Stephen P. Halbrook,

'Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876', Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998, is recommended.

[robertpaulsen]

So, from your own cite which you chose to post, you finally admit that the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states.

Well, congratulations for at least getting that one correct.

[robertpaulsen]

"Do you consider the 14th to be somehow 'evil'? Many statists do: --"

A statist would consider the 14th evil?

"I do not think you know what that word means."
-- Inigo Montoya

[tpaine]

Daffy rob strikes again..

How do you figure Rolands quote "admits that the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states" ?

[tpaine]

I use the term 'statist' to refer to those who support 'states rights' over individual rights..

By all means bobby, - if that isn't politically correct, feel free to turn me in to the spelling police..

[robertpaulsen]

"I use the term 'statist' to refer to those who support 'states rights' over individual rights.."

Then use totalitarian. A statist is different.

But it seems to me that you want the power centralized at the federal level. That you do not want a federated republic consisting of 50 independent states and a federal government with limited powers. You actually like the 14th amendment forcing each state to do the federal government's bidding (Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, and all the others). Well, you got it, Mr. Centralized Government. Talk about a totalitarian!

Found this in Federalist #39: "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."

Yet another cite by robertpaulsen.

[robertpaulsen]

"How do you figure Rolands quote "admits that the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states" ?"

Because Roland admits that the 2nd amendment has never been incorporated by the USSC to apply to the states.

" This seemingly simple language has given rise to endless controversy over its interpretation. Beginning with the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court has decided cases involving the Fourteenth by selectively invoking only the most minimal and restrictive rights needed to decide each case, and never declaring in dictum that the Fourteenth protects all rights recognized by the Constitution. This has led to the doctrine of selective incorporation of the Bill of rights, most of which have eventually been included in the protection, but a few of which have not."

"Two of the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights that have not been "incorporated" are the right to keep and bear arms of the Second Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment right ..."