Skip to comments.
Spread the Word - The exclusionary content of the Bill of Rights!
Know Your Rights ^
| FR Post 10-23-2002
| Dr. Linda Thompson
Posted on 10/24/2002 7:40:47 PM PDT by vannrox
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights
[This is a note to me from Dr. Linda Thompson of the American Justice Federation that I am passing along to everyone...email me with your comments ken]
[to ken]
You left off the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution and if it didn't, the amendments were rights of the people the government couldn't screw with.
Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!!
Here's a copy!!!
Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
PREAMBLE
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 insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.
There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
End the deception.
Return to Know Your Rights
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/lindat.html
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amendment; bill; constitution; dnc; freedom; government; liberty; rnc; second
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
I just had to post this. It is So revelant.
1
posted on
10/24/2002 7:40:48 PM PDT
by
vannrox
To: vannrox
Bump for the preamble
To: vannrox
Thank you BUMP.
3
posted on
10/24/2002 7:48:38 PM PDT
by
semaj
To: vannrox
. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself.Most of the Bill of Rights has been "interpreted" to the point they are meaningless.
4
posted on
10/24/2002 7:58:44 PM PDT
by
MileHi
To: vannrox
In all fairness, the official archival site of the gummint has the
complete preamble posted
here. In addition, they provide a link to a scan of the original document. Your post, however, is a good reminder.
To: vannrox
"I just had to post this. It is So revelant."
Yes, it IS very relevant now at a time when, in the event of war, we may stand to lose our rights for the sake of national security.
Vannrox, I personally thank you for all the relevant articles you've posted here for our perusal and education.
To: vannrox
"The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution." Good post. The first ten amendments are the reason the constitution was written in the first place. Yes, they are the supreme law of the land, and cannot be superceded by further amendments, laws passed by congress, laws based upon treaties, or nullified or modified by the states. (Article XI, Para 2.) No laws can be passed which are not in pursuance to the Bill of Rights/U.S. Constitution.
Ooops! Never mind. For a minute I thought I was living in America. :-<
7
posted on
10/24/2002 9:06:09 PM PDT
by
Eastbound
To: Eastbound
Yes, they are the supreme law of the land, and cannot be superceded [superseded] by further amendments...Nonsense. Any part of the Constitution, including any amendment, including the first ten amendments, can be altered by further legitimate amendments. What SHOULD not happen is "amendment by stealth" or "amendment by interpretation," which is in actuality simply usurpation, by the Executive, the Legislature, or the Judiciary, of powers that the People have not really delegated to them by means of the Constitution.
To: Arthur McGowan
Should not happen, I agree. So there is nothing to stop a new amendment from being passed that would or could completely alter or even dispose of any of the first ten amendments -- supposing the states would ratify the proposal? I've understood that we can add to the constitution, but whatever is added must not diminish in any way -- only enhance the original. Comment?
9
posted on
10/24/2002 11:52:53 PM PDT
by
Eastbound
To: vannrox
The Constitution is a document that is supposed to induce the American people to argue their point of view. Every issue is meant to be decided not by deception but by public legislative debate. It is an argument. It has always been an argument and it, if I have anything to do with it, will always be an argument of some sort. The minute you sit down and let those around you decide for you how you are supposed to feel, live, work, play, breath, worship, heal, and all the other pertinent listings is the minute that someone else will start living the Freedoms of America for you. Have a great American day and know that you may be the only True American left willing to fight for your Liberties.
Thomas Jefferson Meads III 10/25/2002
To: hottomale
Constitution or no Constitution.
(Lest we forget). :) Credits to whomever :)
To: hottomale
Constitution or no Constitution.
(Lest we forget). :) Credits to whomever :)
To: Eastbound
What is the meaning of "enhance." Did the Eighteenth Amendment "enhance" the Constitution or not? There's certainly nothing IN the Constitution requiring amendments that "enhance" the Constitution and prohibiting those that don't!
To: Arthur McGowan
Congress shall pass no law that is not in pursuance to the Bill of Rights/Constitution. This was locked in when it was originally ratified. Doesn't stop burglars from blowing the locks off from time to time. 16, 17 and 18 and more. Some judges have even elevated laws based on treaties superior to the Bill of Rights.
Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that congress and the courts and the executive branch have carte blanche authority to whittle away at any part of the Constitution.
If there were nothing wrong with past amendments, there wouldn't be so many people and organizations attempting to restore the Constitution.
To: Eastbound
There is very little wrong with the TEXT of the Constitution. The worst "amendments" have come about through the fiat of Courts and the usurpations of Congress. And there is NOTHING in the text of the Constitution limiting future amendments to those that "improve" the Constitution.
To: Arthur McGowan
"There is very little wrong with the TEXT of the Constitution. The worst "amendments" have come about through the fiat of Courts and the usurpations of Congress. And there is NOTHING in the text of the Constitution limiting future amendments to those that "improve" the Constitution." Okay, I finally understand what you are saying. But I still have to ask, what say you of ARTICLE XI, Para 2? Doesn't the 'pursuancy clause,' at the very least prevent the passage of laws or amendments which are contrary to the Constitution? In the same way that the states can have nothing in their constitutions which are contrary to the U.S. Constitution, is not Congress or any other branch of government prevented from passing laws, policies, mandates, etc., which are contrary to the U.S. Constitution.? Otherwise, why use the word 'pursuance' -- or even refer to itself as the supreme law of the land? I believe the pursuancy clause locks it in, notwithstanding the usurpations of the past.
I further believe that even one amendment which begins to limit (infringes upon) the the rights of Citizens changes the complexion of the entire document, no matter what kind of a facade the usurpers put in place to hide it. (i.e., treaties are supreme over the Constitution.).
A constitlution which is unlawfully altered is no constitution at all. To pass and enforce laws/amendments which are not in pursance, is to pass unlawful laws and amendments.
To: Eastbound
LAWS which usurp powers that Congress is not delegated in the Constitution are, of course, unconstitutional, but an amendment, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional. The First Amendment could be completely abolished by another amendment.
To: Arthur McGowan
"The First Amendment could be completely abolished by another amendment." Not without the express permission and vote of each and every Citizen of the United States, excluding no one. The Consitution and first 10 amendments belong to the indidvidual -- not the corporate state. The Constitution is my inheritance. No one can spend my inheritance without my permission, nor can a majority vote, or the ratification of an amemdment remove my inheritance. In a Republic, especially in our peculiar republic, the rights of even the poorest Citizen shall not be stolen, extinguished or infringed upon. Nor can the King or his elite guard cross my threshhold without my permission.
If you really believe otherwise, I'd be interested in knowing why. Do you have a cite from our founders? Federal Papers, or whatever?
To: vannrox
Excellent!
To: Eastbound
Not without the express permission and vote of each and every Citizen of the United States, excluding no one.jNonsense. The First Amendment can be abolished with a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate and the ratification of two-thirds of the states. There is no basis whatsoever for your assertion that a vote of each and citizen would be needed. The Constitution was not handed down from Mount Sinai! There is nothing in it that cannot be altered through the amendment process.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson