Constitutional Rights....
their are no such rights.
Yes you read that right, there is no such thing as Constitutional rights. The Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grants us rights. We are given rights by our creator, we are born with them.
The Constitution is the rule book we gave our representatives/government to follow, in no way does it restrict us and our rights. The Bill of Rights does not give us rights, it merely enumerates a few. How can this be? We have been told all of our lives that the Constitution give us rights and lists them. Well there is a amendment in the Bill of Rights that very clearly states just because a right is not listed does not mean it does not exist. That amendment is the 9th.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just what does that mean? Seems pretty simple. Just because a few are enumerated does not mean other rights not enumerated are 2nd class or regulate able or deniable. Can it be read any different way? How can Constitutional scholars and lawyers not understand such simple unambiguous language? Well they read between the lines to justify their ideology/political philosophy. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are contracts, words, comma’s and punctuation are intentional as moving them around changes meanings. The founders wrote a simple document that does not require a degree of any kind to read and understand. Read the Bill of Rights, all of the amendments. They are all in simple easy to understand language. If there are clauses or restrictions they would be listed in the contract. The 9th clearly states there are no restrictions on rights not enumerated. Even the enumerated rights have no clauses. So just where are these restrictions on our rights coming from?
Well if their was a villain among st the founders it would be Alexander Hamilton. He believed in a strong central government unlike Jefferson and Madison. Hamilton was dead set against a Bill of Rights – WHY?
Federalist 84 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0247
Excerpt:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which16 they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
A couple of key words and phrases here: “They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? “
Powers which are not granted…... talk about a wrecking ball - those simple three words destroy virtually everything the federal government is doing. If the power is not granted it does not exist – PERIOD END OF STORY. Can anyone site from the Constitution or Bill of Rights where all these alphabet soup agencies are listed as having been granted power? I would like the article and section # of such granting by us of such power to the government. Not legal theory, ideology – I would like facts, it is simple just read the Constitution and post the relevant article and section.
….. would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. This is exactly what the enemies of freedom have done for over 100 years now. Some how in their twisted minds and world the Bill of Rights lists all of our rights and they can regulate them. It does NOT, per the 9th just because it was not enumerated does not mean the right does not exist or is deniable or regulatable. WE retain these rights.
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why indeed as it has turned out Hamilton was exactly right.
Apparently the conservatives hero, Scalia had not read the 9th or he had and cannot understand simple language or maybe its just a superiority complex.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4626090/scalia-bill-rights
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-bear-arms-not-unlimited-noted-future-limitations-decided-future-cases-article-1.1124408
So why did nobody challenge Scalia to show them the exceptions in the 2nd or any of the Bill of Rights Amendments? I have no idea, seems like its a plausible question that is easily answered, so why not ask – where are the restrictive clauses, specifically in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? Why does nobody ask the simple question? If asked I’m sure you’d get an indignant response and a scowl of – how dare you question me – an expert.
If we plan on handing down freedom to future generations we’d better start asking such questions of our legal “experts” as it seems to me the learned and degreed people cannot read simple language and comprehend it. Its time we demand more than – because I’m the expert. Demand to know where this power was granted as in the USA ALL power is derived from the people – the consent of the governed.
We have entered a dangerous time, a time in which the vast majority believe government issues, limits or decides rights. If government is issuing, limiting or deciding rights they are no longer rights, they are privileges. Privileges are subject to rules and regulations, revocation by the issuer, at their discretion.. Does that sound like rights? Rights are permanent not transitory. Privileges are for two classes of people – slaves and children and only superiors, your masters or owners issue them
Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence
”That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”
And I’ll leave you with this. One of the most important documents by the founders is the Declaration of Independence. It lays out the reason for the revolutionary war, their outlook on a proper place for government. The Federalist Papers are the manual for the Constitution.
Comments? Suggestions? We cannot set by silently if we expect to keep our freedoms. This is a place to start.
Well, I can tell you that people are NOT interested in doing what the Declaration of Independence instructs us should be done when our government is no longer of, by, and for the people. It is true that our government derives its power from the consent of the governed. And that is the problem--we have consented to be ruled by tyrants. I had someone tell me the other day that the Declaration of Independence was a nice idea, but that is just didn't offer practical advice. What people consider to be "practical" anymore has nothing to do with whether or not they are capable of doing it, and more to do with whether or not it disrupts their comfort or comes at some sacrifice to them to do so.
I think that for us to get to the point of accepting the wisdom put forth in the Declaration of Independence, we first have to be blatantly honest about the present state of things. Many conservatives continue to proclaim that we live under a constitutional republic. But we don't. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, right? We don't seem to want to admit that the republic that we had is one that we did not keep. And given that we neglected to keep it, it would be foolish of us to continue to look to a form of government which is no longer practiced to reform itself. But that seems to be what we are doing. People have been conditioned to outsource the protection of their freedom to others. When that happens, government is no longer of, by, and for the people. Our constitutional republic now seems to only exist in mythical or fairy tale form. So how do you get people to understand the Declaration of Independence as a practical document when people continue to hold faith that a system of government which no longer exists (in practice) is going to deliver to them a fairytale ending? Because it has to! Because the Constitution says so! That is what they say. But as you have rightly pointed out, our rights are not granted to us by words on a piece of paper, and when we fail to be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to protect and defend our rights, it does come at the cost of a loss of freedom. We get what we accept.