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is our property, collectively and individually, not the government's. It may not be interpreted away, amended, or repealed, wholly or in part, without negating the entire Constitution from which government derives its authority.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

[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."

[sauropod]

Our black robed priesthood feels differently...

[basil]

So--how do we correct it?

[tpaine]

They need to be taught that their 'feelings' don't count.
- They too are bound by the "Law of the Land".

[steve50]

On a related note the rumormill is saying that the AWB is going to be added to a bill protecting gun makers from lawsuits and passed as a "compromise".

The're going to urinate down our backs again and tell us it's raining freedom and liberty.

[tpaine]

We have to take back political control in the various States from the two national parties, and insist that only the principles of the Constitution/BOR's be enforced in our states/localities.
IE -- The free state projects ideas..

[tpaine]

We should be so lucky..
In a way I hope they pass it, and thereby bring on the confrontation, so long overdue.

[Whispering Smith]

Seems to me that one result of the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/War Between the States/Second American Revolution was that the Fedreal Government can and will do whatever it decides to do. The New Deal (Third American Revolution) and Supreme Court packing episode of FDR confirmed this.

[tpaine]

Our political process is at fault.. Not the constitution.

The socialists have a lock on the 'two' party system, and on fed/state/local governments.
We have to find a way to break that lock.

[basil]

I'd love for us to be able to do that. Do you think it's doable in our lifetime?

[robertpaulsen]

"The Bill of Rights passed the House easily. When it was sent to the Senate, an amendment was removed that forbade states from interfering with the rights of the people."

" ... later, in 1868, the fourteenth amendment would be passed establishing the principle that states may not interfere with the rights granted to citizens by the federal government."
--en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

As tpaine's world comes crashing down.

[tpaine]

We have to take back political control in the various States from the two national parties, and insist that only the principles of the Constitution/BOR's be enforced in our states/localities.
IE -- The free state projects ideas..

I'd love for us to be able to do that. Do you think it's doable in our lifetime?

I think its very possible that mistakes [like renewing the AWB] will bring things to a head..
These socialist fools never know when to quit, and they will overstep their bounds soon, imo.

[tpaine]

Bizzaro paulsen. -- You just made my point.
Most of the people 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 you prohibitionists.
Prohibitionism
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080685/posts

[coloradan]

The Bill Of Rights doesn't grant any rights at all, it recognizes pre-existing ones and puts them in writing. If the document does anything at all, it constrains government - they can't restrict speech or arms, can't house soldiers there, can't search that.

[camas]

the bill of rights is the states and citizens protection from the (king) federal government. the constitution is what the federal government uses to govern the states and people. both have there own function.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - LAW - CONSTITUTION

[tpaine]

See the prohibitionist link at 13..

Many FReekers are so far gone on a 'states right' to prohibit that they support CA's assault weapons ban.

[basil]

So--it brings it to a head--then what do you see happening?

[S.O.S121.500]

No Bill of Rights, no Constitution.
No Constitution, no government.
I THINK THAT SAYS IT ALL

[tpaine]

We have to take back political control in the various States from the two national parties, and insist that only the principles of the Constitution/BOR's be enforced in our states/localities. IE -- The free state projects ideas..

I'd love for us to be able to do that. Do you think it's doable in our lifetime?

I think its very possible that mistakes [like renewing the AWB] will bring things to a head..
These socialist fools never know when to quit, and they will overstep their bounds soon, imo.

So--it brings it to a head--then what do you see happening?

Civil disobediance on a county or statewide scale would lead to the issues being 'reconsidered' in the USSC.. - And constitutionalists would win.

Because the only other alternative is civil war. -- The socialists really don't believe this could happen..
- Thus, the process must be started before they will cave..