Replies

So, my post 36 was:

Can those currently in positions of leadership be expected to openly come out with such clarity if the Founders themselves were reluctant to clearly word the Amendment as follows:

The Right of the People to alter or to abolish a Government and to institute new Government, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms necessary to do so shall not be infringed.

And your response was:

They did.

And my response to that is:

Excellent!!! But I can't quite find some of the words (like "abolish" and "institute new Government" and some of the others) that "they did" clearly word in the Amendment. I'd really like to know where they are at. Not prenumbra or emanations; the actual words.

You have to read up on the reason for the style of language used in The Bill.

The idea and fact was that all, all powers are derived not from the government, nor any document, or statement but from the people and from God. So it wasn't necessary to inform those that held that power, what their powers would be. Further the writers of The Bill of Rights thought of your approach and felt that if they got into that, that anything they didn't say, then people would assume that what was left out wasn't a popular right, but that it was, maybe, a govenmental right. So, they wanted to avoid that, both in language style and explicitly in the Tenth and the then last amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

This notion on non enumerated powers is now unknown in our lawyer, document and word rich legal culture. But, that is our present problem. And that is what you are asking for, a hundred thousand page manual of explicit orders down to the last degree, or as that Yale lawyer President said, and reflecting our present legal culture to include, ‘what is is.’

KK,

I think that what you are doing is looking to the wrong document for guidance.

The Declaration of Independence is our founding document, not the Constitution. The DoI boldly outlined the reasons for our separation from the Crown and the hows and whys for our desired manner and style of governance. In there you will find that we do have the right — and indeed the duty — to throw off an unjust government.

The Articles of Confederation was the first attempt at rules for the government to follow. When that proved ineffective, a new Constitution was written. It was intended as chains on the government. It didn’t grant rights. It didn’t get into philosophy. It simply delegated limited powers to the new central government. I’ve come to agree with the Federalists that the BoR was unncecessary and even a mistake.

We don’t need a penumbra or emanations from it. All rights are inherent in us as our birthright. A right need not be enumerated to be inalienably ours, but too many people have come to believe just that.