Welcome once again to the blog of the Total Idiot. I really know nothing at all, croaking like a frog and parading like a parrot in front of those present out in the blogosphere. I really don't know, nor do I care who reads this, or what they think of it. Wouldn't matter to me anyway, I'm too much an idiot to ponder long upon that.
This posting explores the nature of the Bill of Rights. It also explores the attitudes of the founders in regard to it, and the remedies placed by those selfsame founders for violations of rights, immunities, and privileges involved in the constitution. Read on if you dare brave the mind of a Total Idiot.
The Bill of Rights was introduced, with great public controversy, and spearheaded by one Thomas Jefferson. There were a number of persons involved, between the Federalists and Antifederalists. The federalists in general felt that such a bill would weaken the constitution, and that all such protections against the powers were already therein. The constitution, according to their viewpoint, was a bill of rights by its nature and its prohibitions. Those prohibitions, however, could only be in one location, article 1 section 9. It was recognized that this was a contract between the people and the Federal Government by the action of the representatives of the people, to be ratified by popular vote within the states. It established no rights, and could take none away.
There is only one prohibition against the federal government, however, that directly associates with the rights of individuals or groups made up of those individuals. Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution states: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Some would claim, spuriously, that the constitution only limits the federal government, that the states are not affected thereby, however, there are two sections which prevent this as well. Article 1, section 10 holds the same prohibitions against the states. The fourteenth amendment, further, was already in existence, as well as the thirteenth, within those simple clauses, and another. The amendments were unnecessary, as they already existed from the beginning.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
However, simultaneously, the constitution is limited to a specific set of powers, and no treaty can exceed those powers either. Any treaty thus doing is null and void, by its very inception as the powers contained by the office of the president cannot be faithfully executed under a treaty that nullifies the law under which his presidency is founded.
According to the founders, all such protections were already present in the Constitution. The Federalist 84 speaks clearly:
There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.
If all rights were protected, then the only prohibitive clauses are article 1, section 9, and article 1, section 10. The states themselves were bound, and so was the government, and by that means, so were the people themselves from targeted legislation, legislation removing rights of groups, and any legislation giving a benefit or a detriment to any group of any composition. Individual actions could be tried by the court and the jury, but could not have their rights removed outside of the time that was judged an appropriate penalty by the court.
That penalty of law was designed to make total restitution between the offender and the society, and no further action could ever be taken in regard to it.
But yet by that very action, we've decided we can go back in time and wrest from the founders words the ability to place further restrictions after the crime upon those whom we have already punished.
We have decided, in our infinite wisdom, that we can ignore the requirement of warrant for searches and seizures, ignore the immunity from self-incrimination, ignore the ability of a person to assemble, to speak, to believe as they wish, and chosen to legislate our beliefs onto other groups, from marriage to the ability to have relationships.
Certainly, however, we could not be affected by doing so ourselves, right? What idiot would believe that by legislating away the rights of others, we open the ability of others to legislate away our own rights? What fool would look into the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, if we make people panicked enough over the statuses that the government creates, and the media hypes, that perhaps, just perhaps, we might damage the constitution enough that people will gladly turn over their protection, and their rights to the government?
After all, we could never have legislation that would prevent offense, or legislation preventing the ability to assemble on the most public of any venue, Washington D.C. We could never be punished for our self-defense, or that of our family, or home. No politician would ever allow legislation that would dilute our ability to oversee the vote, or our ability to redress grievances, for after all, they are our representatives, and what grievance could you give against them?
Certainly, the old maxim Potestas stricte interpretatur. and In dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia. are obviously archaic. The founders could have never intended to limit the government today, even if that was their stated intent. Tyranny isn't tyranny, black is white, up is down, and you see five fingers.
A power is strictly interpreted, and in cases of doubt, the presumption is never in favor of a power. Archaic, eh? But look at the doctrine of 'reasonable review'... the person applying for relief must prove beyond a doubt not only abuse and unconstitutionality, but that the intent of the legislature and their power does not override their rights guaranteed against infringement. If there's a reasonable connection between the intent stated, and the actions taken, then the constitutionality is upheld.
Such great protection we now have against infringements of our rights. If the right to protect one's self, the right to speak, to assemble, to believe, to privacy, to our own homes, our own property, our own liberty means so little, then perhaps, just perhaps, the stated intent of the constitution, to prevent tyranny, is already fallen, and we must restore it to its proper state, as is our duty.
it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?
Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Have they mobilized the armies of our nation, conceived, and dedicated to the defense of the nation against her very flesh? Who then, could believe that perhaps the stated intent of such beneficial legislation might be slightly different from the actual intent? Certainly the United States would never engage its powers against us, after all, there has been no rendition of citizens to other nations for questioning without trial. Who could believe that they have engaged in active torture, against our own citizens, and citizens of other nations? Who would believe they would torture children for their own ends, or attempt to cover it up? Who would believe that they would place us further into debt, after running on fiscal responsibility, and be castigated by the 'left' for not moving fast enough or far enough? Certainly, who would believe that active army units might be employed in our cities and towns? Who would believe that the nation we love, which we call our own, might have her power turned against us by those who seek further power?
After all, have they given themselves the power of life and death against their own citizens? Can they offer orders, under the Federal Emergency Management Act, to shoot people on sight, to imprison them, to place their labor at the disposal of the executive under Executive Order? Who would believe such a thing in the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave?
Only a Total Idiot. They have attempted more and more to turn those high powers which we granted in the beginning against us, attempt to quarter troops, both foreign and domestic, among us, and have prepared to wage war against us.
The only purpose for the accumulation of weapons and men inside the United States, is to use them.
No comments:
Post a Comment