Know Your Rights or You Will Lose Them
June 26th, 2009
“Most citizens,” writes columnist Nat Hentoff, “are largely uneducated about their own constitutional rights and liberties.”
“It astonishes me to find… [that so many] of our countrymen… should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty… which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries.”
–Thomas Jefferson, 1788
The following true incident is a case in point for Hentoff’s claim. A young attorney, preparing to address a small gathering about the need to protect freedom, especially in the schools, wrote the text of the First Amendment on a blackboard. After carefully reading the text, a woman in the audience approached the attorney, pointed to the First Amendment on the board and remarked, “My, the law is really changing. Is this new?” The woman was a retired schoolteacher.
For more than 200 years, Americans have enjoyed the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, among others, without ever really studying the source of those liberties, found in the Bill of Rights–the first ten amendments to our U. S. Constitution.
Yet never has there been a time when knowing our rights has been more critical and safeguarding them more necessary. Particularly telling is the fact that even under the Obama presidency, most of the Bush administration policies and laws that curtailed our freedoms have remained intact–all of which have drastically altered the landscape of our liberties.
Thus, it is vital that we gain a better understanding of what Thomas Jefferson described as “fetters against doing evil.” If not, I fear that with each passing day, what Jefferson called the “degeneracy” of “the principles of liberty” will grow worse until, half asleep, Americans will lose what our forefathers fought and died for.
A short summary of the first ten amendments shows how vital these freedoms are.
The First Amendment protects the freedom to speak your mind and protest in peace without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans cannot be silenced by the government.
The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” This is one of the most controversial provisions of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, there are those who claim that gun ownership in America should be restricted solely to the police and other government officials.
In many countries, owning a firearm is a mere privilege, reserved for the rich and powerful. Self-protection, however, is not a privilege in America. It is an individual citizen right which the U.S. Supreme Court has now recognized.
America was born during a time of martial law. British troops stationed themselves in homes and entered property without regard to the rights of the owners. That is why the Third Amendment prohibits the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” Even though today’s military does not threaten private property, this amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military. But increasingly, even under the Obama presidency, the threat of martial law being imposed is a clear and present danger.
There’s a knock at the door. The police charge in and begin searching your home. They invade your privacy, rummaging through your belongings. You may think you’re powerless to stop them, but you’re not. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from searching your home without a warrant approved by a judge. But what about other kinds of invasions? Your telephone, mail, computer and medical records are now subject to governmental search.
Even though they’re all personal and private, they are increasingly at risk for unwarranted intrusion by government agents. The ominous rise of the surveillance state threatens the protections given us by this amendment.
You cannot be tried again after having been found innocent. The government cannot try you repeatedly for the same crime, hoping to get the result they want. It’s one of the legal protections of the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. You can “plead the Fifth.”
This means that if you are accused of committing a crime, it is up to the state to prove its case against you. You are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without following strict legal codes of conduct.
The Sixth Amendment spells out the right to a “speedy and public trial.” An accused person can confront the witnesses against him and demand to know the nature of the charge. The government cannot legally keep someone in jail for unspecified offenses.
Moreover, unlike many other countries, Americans also have the right to be tried by a jury of ordinary citizens and to be represented by an attorney. Our fates in criminal proceedings are not decided by panels of judges or unaccountable politicians.
Property ownership is a fundamental right of free people. In a legal dispute over property, the Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial.
Like any other American citizen, those accused of being criminals have rights under the Constitution as well. In some countries, the government abuses what they see as disloyal or troublesome citizens by keeping them in jail indefinitely on trumped-up charges. If they cannot pay their bail, then they’re not released. The Eighth Amendment is, thus, similar to the Sixth–it protects the rights of the accused. These are often the people most susceptible to abuse and who have the least resources to defend themselves. This amendment also forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishment.
The framers of our Constitution were so concerned about civil liberties that they wished to do everything conceivable to protect our future freedom. Some of the framers opposed a bill of rights because it might appear that these were the only rights the people possessed. The Ninth Amendment remedied that by providing that other rights not listed were nonetheless retained by the people.
Our rights are inherently ours, and our government was created to protect them. The government does not, nor did it ever, have the power to grant us our rights. Popular sovereignty–the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers–is clearly evident in this amendment and is a landmark of American freedom.
Ours is a federal system of government. This means that power is divided among local, state and national entities. The Tenth Amendment reminds the national government that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution.
Congress and the President have increasingly assumed more power than the Constitution grants them. However, it’s up to the people and the state governments to make sure that they obey the law of the land.
Having stood the test of time, there is little doubt that the Bill of Rights is the greatest statement for freedom ever drafted and put into effect. In the end, however, it is the vigilance of “we the people” that will keep the freedoms we hold so dear alive. Therefore, know your rights, exercise them freely or you’re going to lose them.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His latest book The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks) is now available.
Source: Tenth Amendment Center
No related posts.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I disagree with a fundamental error in many American’s attitudes evident in this article. Specifically, this section: “For more than 200 years, Americans have enjoyed the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, among others, without ever really studying the source of those liberties, found in the Bill of Rights”
The SOURCE of these rights is NOT the Bill of Rights. The source is natural law, the source is the humanity of the subjects. The source is NOT a piece of paper. It simply nominally prevents Congress from infringing upon these rights.
June 27th, 2009 at 11:11 am
@ Jan
What the F is “natural law?” Natural Law as in Nature? Natural Law as in Universal Truth? What the hell are you jabbering about?
Maybe I am the idiot for even arguing with an idiot!
June 27th, 2009 at 11:17 am
@Gal
If you have studied law or political philosophy even remotely, you’d know of natural law.
June 27th, 2009 at 11:39 am
@ Jan:
Define it for me. I am stupid you know!
June 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
@Gal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
:)
June 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
@ Jan
Okay Jan, I will relent… since you have been so slow in answering my plea for a clearer definition of that which you assert… HOWEVER, if you are (and I KNOW YOU are,) referring to NATURAL LAW as in Ancient Greece… I cannot believe anyone of your so called study would even make such a statement — UNLESS you are WAY YOUNG, idealistic to a fault and the kind that likes to tell a parent how to raise a child without having one of your own (analogy here just in case you do not get it.)
THERE is no such thing as a cohesive anything under HUMAN REASONING and won’t be until HUMAN KIND has evolved past the war and rule state of mindsets.
Gosh people like you prove that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Thank you Zoni! I appreciate your help.
However Zoni, I do not like Wikipedia as a source of information. Like History, it is written by the victorious… or in this case, the individual. Facts are distorted when represented by the interpreter. All facts are open to interpretation… ALL so called FACTS!
Thank you again Zoni!
June 27th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
@Gal
Wikipedia is not really a source of information. It’s more of a collection of citations, and they have VERY strict standards on what gets on there, the foremost being neutrality. I know this from being an occasional editor myself. Check the footnotes on that page I sent you some time.
Furthermore, Jan’s reasoning soundly states that there are rights (as stated in the Declaration of Independence) that are inalienable. I think people don’t understand the full implication of the word inalienable. An inalienable right means that you are justified in taking any action necessary to preserve said right, including bloodshed and revolution (which is actually a RESPONSIBILITY for citizens under the jurisdiction of corrupt politicians–See the Declaration of Independence).
I’m just stating that Jan’s reasoning is solid, although I’d admit his tribute to the authority of Natural Law is somewhat undefined.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
@ Zoni and Jan:
Ohhh so now Wikipedia is being defended as only a “COLLECTION OF SITES?” I will address this later however, LMAO at YOU, Zoni where you proudly state being “an occasional editor” yourself and I have to thank you for proving my point so THANK YOU!
Sardonic wit put aside, I am ready for critical discussion.
What I most vehemently protest is that philosophy of ANY SORT be contributed to this article. AS if?
The very fact that someone would do this is stupid. I do not mean to be abrasive but this makes me angry. Very Angry.
I know what Zoni and Jan! Use your philosophy to pay off the bailout that was signed and forced on Americans under threat of Martial Law! Ha! Inalienable RIGHTS? Where were they then? HOW did your philosophy protect the AMERICAN from being TAXED without representation?
Use your political study and philosophy to stop TORTURE UNDER THE LETTER OF THE LAW! Do you think it will work? Hey if it does sistah’s, I am right there with you… I will hold up the left end of the book of Political Study and Philosphy (or are we using more than just one study/source/school of thought/assertion, etc., if so I promise to hold up my parts) as an enthusiastic team player alongside you both.
MY GOSH! BE FOR REAL… Do we really need to get into the very basis of your study? I mean, are we really that juvenile that one must discuss the purpose of GOVERNMENT? Additionally, to add human reasoning to this does nothing but display pomp and ego on the part of Jan.
This is not about showboating Jan. THIS IS ABOUT real life facts and events taking place before our very eyes right here, right now wherein every single day someone is being battered by some sort of system somewhere without regard to HUMAN REASONING or NATURAL LAW! NOT to mention how easily it is to muddy the waters by this contribution and its many flaws which serve to deviate from the most important issues… OUR RIGHTS UNDER THE Bill of Rights, THE first ten amendments to our U. S. Constitution.
I am experiencing the inability to articulate based on the audacity of Jan’s statement. BUT for now this will do.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
@Gal
You seem to know it all. Apparently philosophy doesn’t play a role in any aspect of human life, law, and action whatsoever. Apparently a website operated and inspected by hundreds of thousands of paid workers a day is completely invalid for any type of learning whatsoever.
Enlighten me.
How do we solve all of our problems without any reasoning as to WHY the government is wrong in the first place?
I get a feeling we’re on the same side here, but you’re constantly on the attack, and it’s hard to tell where you’re coming from.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
@ABOVE:
Editing != Adding information.
You have never used Wikipedia (reading it is not “using” it), so we can stop talking here. So you don’t accept it as a source. Fact remains, natural law can be define anywhere else. Break out a World Book or Britannica.
Also, to every single one of your points after that – we have been slowing losing our rights over the years because we have forgotten what they were. I guarantee the average American can not name a third of the rights granted by the Bill of Rights. (I’m being generous).
“Use your political study and philosophy to stop TORTURE UNDER THE LETTER OF THE LAW” et al
Using education and expertise you can properly educate the masses so that they will know these things are wrong and they can vote for people who will respect our or others rights. Either that or revolt.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Are we trying to educate? Are we? Tell me this then… how is it that the US Constitution and the BILL OF RIGHTS THEREIN are being taught by the assertions put forth by either Jan or Zoni?
IS NOW really the time to be philosophical? IS it?
The Author of this article did a great job by sounding the alarm of the downfall of OUR US CONSTITUTION and specifically THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS stated therein particularly UNDER OUR BILL OF RIGHTS! NOT under any kind of speculative rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. I assert that the time for such a NOBLE ENDEAVOR has long come and gone and at this juncture WE ARE IN DIRE NEED OF PIN POINT PRECISION on what can back us up when our very rights are being slowly usurped from each and every AMERICAN.
I agree that many AMERICANS are asleep. I agree that some LOUD SOUND must wake us all up to what is happening… BUT I DO NOT AGREE that throwing in a red herring is the way to get the best results.
Again, I assert that it is pomp and ego. NOTHING MORE on the part of Jan and I resent it at a time like this because WE DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF ROUND-TABLE LEISURE DISCUSSION/PONDERING/THEORIZING/SPECULATING/ENACTING right now… NOT TO MENTION our forefathers have already done that… tyvm.
June 27th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
@Gal
I seriously think we’re all on the same side.
I’m not arguing that you’re wrong and we should ignore you. I’m simply saying that Jan is ALSO right. The laws in the US Constitution are based on Natural Law (source: declaration of independence. A fantastic read, mind you, I believe I’ve cited it several times.). They are one in the same.
Jan says that Natural Law is the highest law. You say the Constitution. You are both right, granted that they are both extremely similar (the Law of Man is often cited when there IS no constitution. We are fortunate to own such a document in writing). And I agree in full: the article that we are commenting on really hit the nail on the head.
I share, in full, your concern for the downplaying of American rights. But it’s ludicrous to assume that I’m going to argue with Natural Law when we have such leverage as great as the Constitution lying at the heart of Capitol Hill. So I agree, the Constitution should be the defining law of our citizenship (whereas Natural Law is the defining law of our livelihood should a Constitution somehow cease to exist). And we need to stop these violations of rights before they stop us.
But the only question that remains is how we, as citizens, do such a thing. Throwing Molotov cocktails would be a foolish move. Educating the public on Constitutional rights, as well as rights that are not included in the Constitution (see our Ninth Amendment) is the best weapon against tyranny since gunpowder. Using your jury duty to enact a phenomenon called “jury nullification” is a wonderful way to protest bad laws AND CHANGE THEM. Getting an honest man in Congress for a change would be a glorious step toward freedom. But it all starts with education, and that’s all four of our jobs.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I beg to differ Zoni… on what I consider to be the HIGHEST LAW. BUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT what I THINK or REASON OR any such philosophical cogitating I might want to put forth. THIS ARTICLE SPECIFICALLY CITES the US CONSTITUTION and the BILL OF RIGHTS as its source. I am specifically focused on that CITE and nothing more. NOT NATURAL LAW, NOT SCIENTIFIC LAW, NOT ANY OTHER KIND OF LAW that is NOT appropriate to this ARTICLE!
However, I am glad that you agree NATURAL LAW is the most inherent element in the US CONSTITUTION and THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THANK YOU FOR THAT!
Additionally, the margin for error resulting from tunnel vision is what I think is happening here with most especially you and Jan.
Okay here I go…
If anyone thinks that what is happening to our rights stems from merely a group of elected US officials/electee’s trampling on them, then I must say THAT THIS SPECIFIC “ANYONE” doing this type of thinking needs to implement critical thinking in a big and bad way. There is a special naiveté of being educated but having no practical experience in the specified area of education.
I charge that both you and Jan exhibit this naiveté!
Q: When the AIG proper bailout was signed, who were the authors?
A: I know that there are three in particular, but cannot find out who they are.
Q: Who exactly threatened Martial Law?
A: I do not know who threatened MARTIAL LAW but I sure as hell do want to know because IF THERE IS THE THREAT OF MARTIAL then we are UNDER MARTIAL LAW!
Q: Who are the foreign bankers specifically?
A: I know who authorities on this subject suggest WHO the foreign bankers are and I agree that they are big global financiers, but I DO NOT KNOW THE EXTENT OR THE EXACT involvement of their interests of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT other than what I have read that they have publicly stated.
Q: Are we absolutely certain that it is our AMERICAN GOVERNMENT doing the trampling on our RIGHTS and NOT SOME ONE/THING/ENTITY OUTSIDE OF THE US calling the shots using money/currency as its weapon if we/our elected/our representatives do not comply?
A: I AM NOT CERTAIN. THE evidence suggests that our PRESIDENT is a puppet.
I COULD GO ON and ON! My point is this…
UNDER THE ABOVE PREMISE:
OUR BILL OF RIGHTS and OUR US CONSTITUTION mean nothing to anyone outside of the US. Under the above premise NATURAL LAW falls so far away from the tree that it begs definition as to what tree it bloomed from.
A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT cares nothing about OUR US CONSTITUTION more or less NATURAL LAW.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Again, I was not clear… I have so much going on in my mind and I have never ever encountered this problem of jumbled thinking and a complete inability to articulate…
I simply mean that now is not the time to be discussing and philosophizing on NATURAL LAW. WE should not even be discussing this in any way whatsoever based on what is happening at this moment.
TIME IS CRUCIAL now. ANALOGY: We are starving and on the brink of death. SO should we discuss how corn grows and why? OR should we forage for food to survive and then discuss how corn grows and why?
June 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
@ Anonymous
Wikipedia contains no formal peer review process for fact-checking, and the editors themselves may not be well-versed in the topics they write about.
Thank you very much.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Again @ Anonymous:
YOU SAID:
““Use your political study and philosophy to stop TORTURE UNDER THE LETTER OF THE LAW” et al
Using education and expertise you can properly educate the masses so that they will know these things are wrong and they can vote for people who will respect our or others rights. Either that or revolt.”
REGARDING WIKIPEDIA; SINCE you/ANONYMOUS stated: “You have never used Wikipedia (reading it is not “using” it), so we can stop talking here. So you don’t accept it as a source. Fact remains, natural law can be define anywhere else. Break out a World Book or Britannica.”
YOU state facts NOT In evidence! YOU assume that I have not read Wikipedia! YOU assume that another source is needed by me thereby implying that I do not know and YOU have no evidence of such a thing!
SO Anonymous, how can I take you seriously? Please tell me.
You assume way to much without having facts to back it up.
You even consider the World Book or Britannica as absolute authority and cite them as a viable sources of information.
FACTS are open to interpretation and all any source can do is present a semblance of facts for the interpreter to interpret.
NOW more specifically on topic Anonymous… THE USA is in revolt. We have no less than 20 STATES DECLARING SOVEREIGNTY FROM THE US GOVERNMENT!
Care to discuss this?
June 27th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
@ Zoni
I never not once declared or stated anything AS THE HIGHEST LAW. THIS IS NOT about what I think is the HIGHEST LAW!
Just so you know… and stand corrected.
June 27th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
we are all fucked
June 28th, 2009 at 12:32 am
With all due deference, the Constitution (as amended) and the Bill of Rights ARE the enforceable codification of natural law.
Now, get out there and enforce them.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:42 am
@ Bill
Exactly Bill.
I wonder after this lively discussion, if I am the only one so hell-bent on getting the word out there. I mean even on a local level of law enforcement, I have noticed a big difference in the way law enforcement is enforcing the law. More and more we are seeing people being tased to death for no apparent reasons. We are seeing that anyone even looking unhappy when stopped by the Police they get arrested and search. We no longer enjoy our habeas corpus rights. We no longer have a right to probable cause.
THINGS are definitely changing.
On a much lighter note… I do not even think this world will see a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. I do think Mother Nature has other plans for this planet and I am so grateful for MOTHER NATURE even in her fury.
Shalom everyone, even Zoni and Jan.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Indeed there is quite a bit of effort put forth by those using philosophical, out Framers design of a Three Tiered system of government so as to never beade to kneel and call “Oligarch” again. Insofar as our First, go to the District on the Hill and attend a House Judiciary Hearing try to enter through the Longworth because doors open 1/2 hour prior to Rayburn so we can wait an extra gazillion hours to retain a seat in Chambers proper, as a Veteran fir Peace and member of Iraq Veterans Against War, last hearing I wore an IVAW T-shirt using egregiously heinous language stating ” I support IVAW “, told to remove or turn shirt inside out or would be barred from the gearing, First, HA!
Of course when the 110th redacted our Fourth, H.R.6403, please read the 157 pages of text in its entirety, Section. 107, does in fact permit physical searches, kicking our front door in at 3:00 am by DHS just Because, so unreasonable search and seizure is no more. Tap ‘n Trap applies to Us Citizens WITHIN the borders of the US, Section 103.
Please do not exempt the Eighth Amendment re: Torture. All of this inane Wikipedia garbage is moot, you would never use am Editable source of information got deeplinks, would you? Law Library if Congress, the GPO’s, PDD’s, Joint Subcommittee and Special Committees text after it leaves the GPO’s, as an Honorably Discharged Disabled Vet, USAF, 75-77 I have Active Duty Troops, Covert Troops and other unamed sources for firsthand info.
Someone inquired about the ball set into motion allowing Declaration of Marshal Law. The destruction of our Constititution, and Executive Over Reach unknown in modern US History until #43 ran roughshod across the Citizenry of our once Respected Nation causing paranoia, conspiracy theories amok using the EVIL DOER in his undisclosed location for near a decade now ge cannot keep his yap shut! Back on track the Sociopath in Chief in a midnight signing in yet another end run around Congress, signed into law “The John Warner Defense Act if 2007″, were anything to upset the veritable apple car of the Warner Defense Act it would enable, Posse Comitatus to be suspended ergo Martial Law could be declared meaning the Constitution of the United States us no more and we are now a Totalitarian/ Communist ( not actually Communism ) State. Unless I misunderstood due to my not very thorough perusal of comments, a question about Bankers, they are the Bildebergs and it and the man on the grassy knoll along with WTC Bldg. #7, I am very much an a$$ in regards to Conspiracy Theories.
You mentioned Article.VI.Section.3., ___snippet___but NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Torture and using letter of the law to cease cruel and unusual, c’mon folks! UN Charter, Geneva Conventions CAT3 Torture Article. It is also included in TITLE 18 – CRIME AND CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT, Chapter 18 – WAR CRIMES, Ss2241 pgs 531 – 534 of US Code. #43 rewrote this Law in ’06 yet no PDD was released until 20 July 2007!
Ahhh America what a country ……
Peace
Rhoda. VFP
June 28th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
@ Rhoda:
Judging by the manner in which you wrote the above comment, I am guessing you are trying to cloak yourself but you give yourself away in many areas. Your phraseology is excellent, and your cites are commendable. I just cannot figure out why you would feel the need to hide yourself behind this kind of writing when it is obvious to the critical thinker that you are far more able than what you present UNLESS, you have some kind of inside access.
Nonetheless my friend, good work.
Bildeberg yes! I know. But who exactly comprise this group? Some names are obvious, but the few everyone hears about is certainly not the total sum.
The circles I run in have a theory. Entertaining the concept of karma, many think that this Bildeberg group are Kings of past, reincarnated who are conniving toward ruling not just a small kingdom but the world. Hahaha. It could be true! It is probably true.
All I know is that I will kneel before no man. I pledge allegiance to no thing outside of my Creator. Give me liberty or give me death. Vive Iran’s riot! Power to the PEOPLE!
July 1st, 2009 at 12:04 am
Natural law protects the ability to do what you were born to do because you born with a brain, a voice, and a body. You were made to speak and express yourself. These are protected by natural law so to speak. Who can stop you from ever thinking a thought or uttering a word that they didn’t want you to think or say? Really they can’t so its sort of stupid to make laws that go against nature. Get it?! The right to privacy or the 4th amendment is a right that literally does protect you from someone else and their words and actions. Which proves cops aren’t human! haha just kidding. My father was a cop, so I can joke a little.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:23 am
natural law is common law… full stop! it is no piece of paper, it is the morally acceptable method of interaction decided upon and conformed to, long before man decided to allow his representatives to subvert justice and attempt to hide their tracks under the guise of statute regulations which are not Laws, they are merely “legislative rules given the force of law by the consent of the governed”… and we are the governed… the consent is given by virtue of the signing away of our rights when our parents sign the birth registration forms, under the “instruction” to do so, worded in legalese and not english… “you must” in legalese translates as “you may if you would like to”… rather a large difference eh? so now we are governed with a language which means something very different to what we believe it to mean…
one is asking you to voluntarily do something that fundamentally revokes your human rights, regardless of a constitution(which was circumvented in 1870 odd, when it became the “constitution of” instead of “the constitution for” the united states, which is merely a corporate body or large company), and the other is apparently ordering you to do something which revokes most fully your human rights… either way if you “consent” then you are “contracted” by default… a study of UCC uniform commercial code, shows that no-one can be bound by any contract, regardless of the signing of it by your parents or yourself…IF you have not been given full disclosure… but in our childlike state of mind we now look to governance for permission(licenses) to do what must already be a fundamentally lawful thing to do, otherwise we would not be granted licenses in the first place…
this is natural LAW… LAWFUL IS NOWHERE NEAR LEGAL, they are worlds apart… legal pertains to the person and is regulatory and commercial and Law is to prevent harm through loss or injury(financial or physical) to the living flesh and blood man… they are worlds apart… as is the childlike understanding of the control levied upon us that a great many exibit… educate yourselves and become empowered… they are conning those without the wherewithall to fathom it out…
July 1st, 2009 at 11:13 pm
[caps are representative of emphasis added and not shouting]
Gina and Felonious:
This article is about and clearly states within the context THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and our BILL OF RIGHTS and OUR RIGHTS under those two ARTICLES and not other such musings!
Perhaps NATURAL LAW discussion is better placed on Zero Point Field,Universal Law, Quantum Physics, String Theory (M Theory included), Parallel Universes, Spiritual Law, etc., which would be a better place for such commentary. IT IS OFF TOPIC HERE. It detracts from the intent of the author of this article and does harm by deviating from the subject which is vital at this time in history.
MY interpretation of what this author intends by his/her article is to SOUND AN ALARM regarding LAWS WRITTEN and WRITTEN LAWS that comprise OUR US CONSTITUTIONAL and the RIGHTS therein, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, which is what AMERICAN LAW is based on, which is what AMERICAN LIFE is based on, etc.
NOT once have I ever read or am I aware of any case going before BAR at any level wherein someone is asserting a violation to their NATURAL LAW RIGHTS!
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (derived PARTIALLY from Natural Law,) are being usurped from us more and more with each passing day and right now IF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are not being respected NATURAL LAW sure as hell does NOT even weigh in.
THE AUTHOR pointedly states that NOT KNOWING OUR US CONSTITUTION and OUR BILL OF RIGHTS works against our ability as a collective whole to keep those rights!
I AM of the opinion that many do not know THE US CONSTITUTION or THE BILL OF RIGHTS. SO I agree with this author and I WISH TO SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATE IN THE SOUNDING OF THE ALARM TO THIS FACT. I DO NOT WISH TO HAVE MY RIGHTS USURPED FROM ME but I am just one person. IT takes all of us to stop what is happening.
THE US CONSTITUTION and THE BILL OF RIGHTS are being trampled on. NATURAL LAW remains the same.
By discussing Natural Law, the US CONSTITUTION and OUR BILL OF RIGHTS LOSE pole position… and NATURAL LAW is NOT what this article is about.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:28 pm
being unable to interpret what are Laws and what are not, seems to myself at least, a fundamental of any discussion on our human rights whether written into a bogus “constitution” or “bill of rights” or not…
what use is a bill of rights if you are unable to correctly decipher the altogether separate language used in the very same bill of rights??
all statutes(acts) are legislation and not Law… there is no such thing as “natural law”, there is common law and there are statutes… nothing else… despite your incorrect assumptions…
all rights given us by the state are attached to our citizen status, our “person”, and relate in no way to the breathing flesh and blood being we each in truth are…
all statutes when written begin with “any person”, or “persons doing this or that”, there is always mention of the person in a statute…
whereas any actual and true Law begins with “everyone” or “anybody”, this is because they HAVE to be adhered to by living people… because they are not by consent(as with statutes), they are Law
“person” is terminology that is in a completely different language(legalese – the language of the law society), and the problem that some appear to have in grasping this ABSOLUTE FACT, is that it happens to look like english when in fact it is vastly different in its translation…
Q so if a constitution or bill of rights is written in a different language that happens to look like english but has a different meaning altogether – HOW COULD YOU READ IT? – HOW WOULD YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANT? – HOW WOULD YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR RIGHTS WERE? OR IF YOU INDEED HAD ANY??
as i said earlier if they wrote it in another language without informing those who “didnt need to know” what use is it to anyone other than “persons/citizens/residents”
you seem not to know what those names relate to!! they certainly do not, nor could they ever relate to living breathing people…
this fact is simply proven, as ALL courts the world over use UCC(uniform commercial code)…
some serious inquiry will bring to your awareness the fact that it is “commercial code”(contractual law), further inquiry will enlighten you to the fact that it is also admiralty law(the law of the sea) and not the law of the land(common law)… so they(courts) can only “act” upon other corporations(our legal selves)
due to them being de facto courts as opposed to de jure courts, they are thus prevented by fundamental rules of the UCC from acting against anything other than a “corporate entity” to prevent them from ever harming a living man(thus contravening common law or the law of the land)…
the “person/citizen/resident” is a legalese term that refers to the legal aspect assigned to each and every individual upon this globe… this legal aspect is created so as to distinguish between the flesh and blood and the corporate self…
this is capitus maximus or the capital letter name, and not capitus diminutio the lower case name… you will find all legal papers or communications are written in this capital form because they pertain to this legal side of us…
without this knowledge and awareness you are floundering, whether you can recite your bill of rights word for word or not…
as i said how can you derive any comfort from reading a book in a language you do not comprehend, i suppose that like most of the disatisfied nowadays you could consider yourself well read and informed while being led down a blind alley believing you(flesh and blood) are offered some form of protection by your bill of rights or constitution, when in actuality it counts for nothing unless you can decipher how it pertains to you or even to which aspect of you it pertains(ie. the person)…
alarms should be f******g ringing and for that you are 100% correct and right to be getting involved, but please look into what i say, if you value your rights at all… because they are being eroded and overidden because we on the whole remain ignorant of this fundamental, until this is understood you in truth have none…
for they merely pertain to your birth certificate(which is invested as a foreign situs trust-an insurance policy similar to a bar number but unlimited)/NI No/SIN No etc. etc. and not the actual you…
it pays for all the costs that could be incurred during your life, whatever they may be, from birth to death… every single thing we are asked to “pay” for, is in effect double entry bookkeeping and is highly fraudulent activity, this is what they wish to cover up with legalese and statute regulation…
if you dont belive me, look into the fact that it is actually illegal to pay bills or fines etc etc with promissory notes as they are not hard currency, so they merely bail you out until a later date when the amount becomes due… as you in the states are about to find out to your cost…
“ignorance before the law is no excuse” this is a maxim in law for a reason…
unless we ALL wake up to these facts and quickly, and learn how to converse in legalese with these usurpers then our rights are simply not there, and this very sad fact can be proven by them in a de facto court, leaving us without any rights that have to be enforced…
to put it simply, you cant tell someone what to do with their own property and we are exactly that, their property, as registration gives up title to something, registration of birth is exactly that!! we signed away our offspring and they are now wards of state(owned by the state) to be done with as seen fit… look into how slavery is believed to have ended(beginnings of civil rights)this was the start of birth certification… the registering(transfer of title) of babies to afford them rights, when they(our rulers) knew most fully that they were giving us another version of slavery disguised as rights…
natural law has no meaning or legal bearing, it is in effect common law and that underpins ALL Law, it is where our real rights lay… so any disussion on rights is incomplete without its inclusion, meaning all that comes from such discussion is just simply speculation or guesswork, and frankly i consider myself and my rights worth more than that, they are worth real inquiry…
July 4th, 2009 at 3:44 am
@ Felonious Monk:
Where in the world did you get all that garbage? I cannot even respond. IT is so far beyond any gibberish I have ever read.
Bogus? Interpret? Defining the use of the word PERSON and LEGALESE? OH JESUS ON A CRACKER for LACK OF CHEESE!
Common law came to AMERICA from England which is more commonly referred to as case law. Decisions made on cases by proper parties. NOTHING MORE.
Natural Law is a theory of law that Christians cling too but is full of dogma, impractical idealism’s that will NEVER work until human kind evolves and IT IS NOT even what ANY OF OUR LAWS are based ON in part or any other way…when I stated earlier I LOOSELY applied NATURAL LAW TO THE US CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS to pacify the babies. NOTHING MORE!
There are many laws that GOVERN EVERYTHING. BUT THIS IS NOT the place to discuss those.
THIS comment section is specifically for discussion ON THE WRITTEN WORKS called THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
nothing more need be said.
July 4th, 2009 at 9:46 am
well gal, i got all that i put above from serious study and research into human rights and Law, and from experience… beginning with MAGNA CARTA…
not by studying a constitution that when push comes to shove holds no water whatsoever… it was written by lawyers loyal to the british crown, not some sort of fairy founding grandfathers…
check out the facts eh…such as the “act of 1871″… heres a starting point for you… how fitting that this should be put to you on independence day itself…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0
when you have spent 5:20 educating yourself as to the facts relating to the very document that you care so much about “the constitution FOR the united states of america”, that you gal, keep saying this discussion is supposed to be about… then and only then will you be ready to raise valid points… until then and as i stated earlier without insult or derrogatory intent, you are merely dealing with speculation…
i truly feel for those of you who fail to learn from the lessons of history, there were major strengths written into the original constitution…
unfortunately, the original constitution you seem to think protects you is not the same document you all believe it to be… it WAS a document protecting the corporation of the UNITED STATES, now it is a document protecting the corporation called HOMELAND SECURITY… THIS IS THE SINGLE REASON THAT YOUR RIGHTS, ON THE WHOLE ARE BEING OVERIDDEN SO EASILY…
should you awaken to this fact(not speculation) then you shall be one step closer making a difference and claiming back your inalienable rights… for they are ALL still there, and this may surprise you, but you need no document to protect them, you just need a working grasp of the principles involved… this way you can interact with officialdom in your correct capacity and status… that of a sovereign…
here’s an example of how to deal with a suspicionless checkpoint… if your rights do not exist, then why is this man not dragged from his car for disobedience or refusal to comply with an official request??
i’ll tell you why gal, because they need your consent mate, refuse to give it and they are powerless to “act”…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDLlEh0x2XA&feature=PlayList&p=7BC956C2E15751BE&index=22
this is a deep rabbit hole and if you have the strength of character to re-assess the blinkered view of the world that our state educations(all we base our comprehensions upon) have left us with, then you will find yourself able to do exactly what you appear to be striving for, the reclamation of your rights stripped away by corporate shysters…
this again is a good and valid starting point for this line of research…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpESn0mxSdk
and even more empowerment can be gained from a working knowledge of the principles put forward in this very entertaining video below…
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-7040453665540929835&hl=en&fs=true
here is a set of videos recorded way back in 1995, it pertains to the history of america and the workings of the legal system created by those who seek to instruct us how to live and what we are allowed or not allowed to do…
this is all about self empowerment and gaining a grasp of what sovereignty/citizenship really means… i would advise you to watch the whole set, as they will certainly open your eyes as to the present sorry state of understanding of these basic concepts of the control used against us…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYYiv0w9Vk0
i hope all this helps you to overcome your blind arrogance in the face of cold hard facts…
if not then it seems you have some painful lessons to learn in the very near future…
i truly wish you well, and in case you are wondering i have no political or religious leaning whatsoever…
i live to my own moral code, that of causing no harm or loss to another being or creature upon the face of this planet, simply treating all the same way i would like to be treated…
July 5th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
i really would like to hear your thoughts gal, if you would do me the honour… as i have put forward facts about the validity of your “constitution for the united states”… in fact the point i raised was that it is not the same document you believe it to be!! evidence to the contrary would be nice if you have some…
surely this warrants a response in a debate on the document itself??
July 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Felonious Monk
What makes you think it is bogus? And by “bogus” what exactly do you mean?
Some of the assertions you make regarding Common Law and Natural Law just simply denigrate this very important article.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS do exist. The Constitution is a living written work that has kept America prospering, its citizenry enjoying an enviable freedom, a reasonable assurance for protection under the law, for well over 200 years. THANKS TO THE US CONSTITUTION and OUR BILL OF RIGHTS!
Common Law is something that KINGS imposed and there were no real rights afforded to many under that rule.
If you mean that the terminology of those documents are open to interpretation… ALL facts are open to interpretation. Sometimes the way those facts are interpreted can make or break a case.
I know many think that law is about right or wrong…Justice being balanced. IT IS NOT about right or wrong that is for sure! BUT it certainly is about balance. The way the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Case Law works, is that it offers more of a chance to represent the majority well being and welfare based on innocence until proven guilty, and for the biggest part this works.
BUT NONE OF THIS has anything to do with this article.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
the info collated in this video make me think that it is bogus – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0
also the study of legalese meanings and legal terminology… as you seem not to be aware of what implications “citizenry” has for the living man…
if you are a citizen then you are afforded certain benefits and priveledges in exchange for your slavery to a financial system, which has been in bankruptcy from the very start in 1776, hence the need for the civil war in your country when the first term of bankruptcy ended… they took the land from the south to use as surety to continue the bankruptcy… this is all checkable, and furthermore you should already be aware of most of it if you are seriously looking for answers as to why you do not seem to have full rights despite having a constitution and a bill of rights which you would expect to protect those rights…
it does not give you full rights because they are only afforded to living beings and not persons(the name given to the legal side of us)… it is all about the wording in legal matters…
while we remain in ignorance of the trap then we do not know we are in one… http://www.thinkfree.org – http://www.tpuc.org are good places to start researching the differences between the person(legal self) and the living man, what the rights for each are and how to tell…
also the constitution for the U.S. has been amended, amendments carry different meaning to the original document… and the original document was changed, this makes it legally, a separate document altogether… hence the new one is bogus whereas the old one was less so, but still written by attorneys loyal to the crown…
i will disect the separate amendments one by one and explain what they refer to and what they do not cover and why if you would like, but i am not online at the moment and unfortunately can only access a computer occasionally… so it may take some time… as i say there are aspects of the wording that refer specifically to the “person” so when this is understood then it reads differently, its not only interpretation as there is accuracy in law… it can be twisted by those who know, and not realized by those who do not know…when it is realized then there is no possibility of manoeuvre if you know how to control the court… this is why we require assistance usually in legal matters… all officers of the courts(attorneys and judges etc) are first and foremost loyal to the courts, and to the defendant secondly…
it isn’t possible to be “not guilty” of any charges, because “guilty” simply means “i will pay”… the defendant agreed to be investigated upon release from custody, and the charges that accrue from the investigation are the ones they charge you with… it is how you then pay the charges that they would like to see kept under wraps…
these are our real rights… and how to enforce them…
December 27th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I have to disagree with the sated premiss that the first ten amendments to our constitution give us all these rights. Those are God given rights. The ten amendments to the constitution just insure that the government can’t take them away from us. I do sadly believe that we are without discussion or argument giving those rights away.
February 13th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Concerned Citizen is absolutely correct. You do not need a law to know that it is wrong to walk into your neighbor’s house, shoot him in the head and take all of his possesions. Government has no rights. Government has priveleges granted by us, the people and we have the right to change the government any time we wish. We as human beings have always had this right since time eternal but have been brainwashed by our government educations.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” Samuel Adams
February 14th, 2010 at 4:05 am
YEAH Johnny Rebel… that is why we are becoming a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
Knowing what is right and what is a right does NOT guarantee the exercising of that right.
It is easy to fight for standards, however, it is harder to live up to them.
I have been seeing the above statement quite a bit lately and it is so true.
WE ARE LOSING OUR RIGHTS whether YOU all like it or NOT! THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING.
February 14th, 2010 at 7:11 am
Rights come only from our Creator and are unalienable and can not be lost Gal. People are fooled into thinking that there rights have been lost because they believe that government has granted those rights. For example, you are supposed to have a concealed hand gun permit in Texas. I have never had one and never conceal my weapon-1911 Colt .45 auto. No policeman in 40 years has ever mentioned it to me when it is on the passenger seat or on my dashboard because it is my right to carry it and defend myself.
I also never went to public school and know my constitution well as do my children.Look up the word unalienable.
February 16th, 2010 at 3:41 am
JohnnyRebel:
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS are great in theory aren’t they? I mean it is like saying there is water in Arizona when Texas has gone dry. What good does water in ARIZONA do to a thirsty dying TEXAN?
YOU are asserting that RIGHTS are ours IN SPIRIT alone conclusively, so then why are WE living in these bodies? THIS is circular in reason and IT makes me sick to see people taking this article to realms of NOWHERE.
This kind of reasoning does NOT belong on this type of article. I assert that this kind of rhetoric is better placed in some kind of religion or spiritual board or commentary section.
THIS article does NOT make any claims regarding OUR SPIRITUAL RIGHTS. THIS ARTICLE clearly and precisely talks about CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY THE BILL OF RIGHTS. AND OUR BILL OF RIGHTS ARE BEING USURPED from us and YOU cannot deny that no matter how unalienable they might be on a spiritual level.
NOW if you want to argue some kind of SPIRITUAL WRITTEN LAWS – WRITE an article where people can comment on it THERE WHERE YOUR ARTICLE IS WRITTEN and NOT HERE because this is NOT what this article is about.