Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: goldstategop
The Constitution only lists a few very of the rights we have

Except for the possibility that the right of due process is a "granted" right the list of rights granted by the Constitution remains at ZERO.

I have often thought if the preamble for the Bill of Rights were more widely known many of these discussions would be unnecessary.

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

There are two more short procedural sections but this was the meat of it. Does not "declaratory and restrictive" make the intentions of the Bill of Rights clear? Now the Government's role and my role as citizen both seem clear. As long as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are intact, I will remain a citizen and not a subject. How could I ask it to be better?

The Bill of Rights did not grant citizens’ rights. The Bill of Rights protects citizens’ rights from government interference.

19 posted on 11/17/2014 5:22:54 AM PST by MosesKnows (Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: MosesKnows
MosesKnows said: Except for the possibility that the right of due process is a "granted" right the list of rights granted by the Constitution remains at ZERO."

The right to "due process" is simply the recognition that there is no obligation to consent to a government without assurance that the government will properly constrain itself.

Trial by a jury of one's peers is a right to be free from arbitrary judgements by the government.

If one is denied trial by jury, then the unalienable right to "due process" dictates that one need no longer consent to being governed because the agreement has been violated.

The government is only now beginning to reverse almost one hundred years of violating due process with respect to the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court, in its recent Heller and McDonald decisions, is only now finally providing the due process which was violated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the subsequent erroneous judicial decisions.

Without this "due process", every gun owner is fully justified in withdrawing consent to be governed by a government which is violating the Bill of Rights.

44 posted on 11/17/2014 10:01:24 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson