Posted on 08/14/2004 11:35:39 AM PDT by forest
We've all heard about "taking the Fifth." Heck, we only need watch the bureaucrats testifying about their wrongdoings for instructions on how that works. They'll use their Fifth Amendment right, and any trick they can think of, to keep from telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Well, "taking the Fifth" is not just reserved for those in government. Citizens also (usually) have a right against self incrimination. In fact, American citizens can use a whole host of such "protections," if they learn to exert their Constitutional authority.
For instance, the Ninth Amendment states that: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be considered to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That tells the central government that all rights belong to us, the people. It also implies that we can tell government to "kiss off" when they try to violate any of our rights or liberties the Constitution does not give them explicit authority to regulate.
So, when government says that we cannot encrypt our messages to others on the Internet, Constitutionally we could say, "Tough cookies! I claim my Constitutional right under the Ninth Amendment of our Constitution." Or, when government demands that we have our papers in order to travel within our own country, we could say, "Buzz off! Our Constitution gives you no such authority to require that. Therefore, I take the Ninth, and do not choose to participate in your unconstitutional rule."
Silliness, you say? Not so. Impractical right now, but certainly not silly.
To say that demanding our unalienable rights and liberties is silly is to say that you approve of the government's practice of picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution they will honor and which they may freely disregard. To not demand the liberty that is Constitutionally yours is to signal the bureaucrats that they may also do what they will with both your life and you property.
And do so they will. In fact, it has already begun, hasn't it.
We citizens must demand that our Constitution be honored as a whole. That is to say, everything in our Constitution must be in effect, with equal weight under the law. Because, if some parts of the Constitution are arbitrarily not applicable today, chances are excellent that none of it will be in effect for your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren by the time they are your age.
The only reason some parts of the Constitution are effective and others are not is because we American citizens do not demand that the federal government honor and obey each and every word as written.
And that, folks, is 100% our fault.
Government must honor the Constitution as a whole.
Furthermore the constitution does not specifically mention anything about murder or battery, therefore I can say "to hell with your unconstitutional laws"... please, I don't think your understanding of the 9th is accurate.
Be careful - - - many on this board will think you are an extremist if you believe in the Constitution of the United States as written!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1191593/posts
The federal government is just a union of sovereign states; it is up to them to make murder illegal.
Come to think of it, my country just changed its name. See tag line.
Murder and battery are prohibited by STATE laws. Thus, those laws are not unconstitutional. However, the federal government now DOES (unconstitionally) prohibit murders--of federal agents, of unborn babies during the commission of a crime, etc. Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Child Protestion Act, not because he is in favor of the killing of unborn children, but because the law is unconstitutional. Of course, every single other member of the Congress who voted against the law did so because he is in FAVOR of killing unborn children.
He started off right: "That tells the central government that all rights belong to us, the people"
The courts have upheld the Ninth at times. For instance striking down a federal law against picketing (yeah, organized labor's rights are always protected) because it violated the Ninth.
A lot of common sense and SCOTUS must be figured in. (SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States.)
The federal government was created in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. (Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.)
Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. One only has to determine if state or federal government has destroyed any of our rights, both enumerated and un-enumerated.
I would place gun laws at the top of the list of things state and federal governments have used to destroy the right to life. The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the use of guns to protect one's life, so it must have considered that as one of the un-enumerated rights the people have reserved to themselves to insure the right to life -- knowing it would be impossible, impractical, cost-prohibitive, and plain stupid to provide every Citizen with an armed bodyguard.
In that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights (a continuous document) is the supreme law of the land, any Thing in state constitutions contrary to that document is repugnant and unconstitutional.
Yes, I'm referring specifically to state and federal gun laws which prevent the People from protecting their lives. If you are unable to protect your life, you do not have the RIGHT TO LIFE!
And by the way. Without the right to life, you can kiss your liberty and the pursuit of happiness goodbye.
So let me repeat:
Our governments (federal and state) were instituted by "We the People" to secure our rights, among which are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (Declaration of Independence.)
Isn't it time to alter the situation, or should we just sit down and shut up and continue to support the inequities in law which favor the rich and famous by supporting their right to life over the common man who cannot afford a bodyguard -- and further, is even felonized for protecting his own life?
You have some good points there. But there is a problem getting heard. I have found that my biggest problem is getting people to listen and think. All they know is the Socialist-Democrat media. BIG problem.
Yes, I know. A friend came over today and we were discussing this exact topic (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) and non-enumerated rights -- and wondered how much longer the 'great experiment' would last. I said that with half of the Citizenry already hell-bent on destroying what vestiges of constitutional government we have remaining, America would quickly slide into obscurity if the democraps regained control.
She was more hopeful than I and said that we were pretty strong and would survive. I said it was going to be hard enough restoring the nation with a full republican sweep.
Time will tell. Meanwhile, all we can do is keep repeating the basics over and over, hoping bystanders will tune in. I usually talk slightly louder than I should in public when I'm with someone and we are in a discussion on these issues. In a restaurant, or whereever. Hope someone gets an earful. Don't know what else to do, except stand on a street corner and shout -- which I just might do if things get worse. Play my guitar, sell pencils and preach freedom. Heh.
You'll have to buy your pencils from the establishment. 8<)
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.