The Constitution and The Bill of Maybe's

The common misnomer of "Constitutional Rights" is what causes much confusion to many people. Mostly, because they only have second or third hand knowledge of the Charters of Freedom. (Thanks to mod Advisor for turning me on to this site)

I, also, hear "Constitutionally guaranteed rights". Again, a totally false presumption.

We, who know the true intent of the Constitution, must educate others and offer documentable evidence of the facts. Just as JPZ, always, does. I think, however, when addressing this to others, we should refrain from using the terms "natural" or "unalienable". Too many don't want to take the time to learn the definitions of those and simply revert to what they've heard for years.

I think the simplest descriptive term is Constitutionally protected rights. After all, that is (was???) the true intent of the Constitution. To protect us from our government. To prevent the taking away of what is rightfully and plainly ours.

Were there not people who wished to impose themselves upon others, there would have been no need for the "Bill of Rights". Because, the Constitution already protected us from the government, by granting to the federal government only those powers which the founders determined were necessary for it to have. Nothing more.

Additionally, I get annoyed when I hear "living document", in defining the Constitution. It is not and was never intended to be. Unfortunately, it is too late to correct the error of allowing federal legislators to expand on what should have been left alone.

reply to post by WTFover

We, who know the true intent of the Constitution, must educate others and offer documentable evidence of the facts. Just as JPZ, always, does. I think, however, when addressing this to others, we should refrain from using the terms "natural" or "unalienable". Too many don't want to take the time to learn the definitions of those and simply revert to what they've heard for years.

How can we possibly educate people on the true intent of The Constitution for the United States if we cater to the laziness ignorance? Refraining from the use of Natural Law, or Unalienable/Inalienable is precisely what the priest class want. They are the ones who have spent so many years defining Unalienable/Inalienable as being simply something that can't be taken away, and willfully omitting the operative of that definition, which is non-transferable. They do so, because if the priest class can convince people that Unalienable/Inalienable means nothing more than can't be taken away, then all they have to do is point to all the rights that have been and are taken away to refute the understanding that rights are inalienable.

It doesn't matter that people don't want to take the time to learn definitions, I don't want to take the time to make my bed and clean the toilet, but the consequences of such laziness does not ever lead to any good. We will never be able to effectively communicate if we don't insist that words be defined precisely and hold consistent with their meaning.

I think the simplest descriptive term is Constitutionally protected rights. After all, that is (was???) the true intent of the Constitution. To protect us from our government. To prevent the taking away of what is rightfully and plainly ours.

Yet even this becomes a compromise, and the evils of compromise are well documented. By diminishing Natural and Inalienable Rights to being nothing more than Protected Rights by Constitution allows for the priest class to then declare the 9th Amendment a mysterious and mystical utterance that only "Constitutional scholars" can rightfully understand, and the only rights that are protected are those rights that have been enumerated. When we make these compromises with the priest class we offer our allegiance to mystics who despise reason and logic, and will do what they must to encourage the abandonment of reason and logic in favor of mystical incantations.

Additionally, I get annoyed when I hear "living document", in defining the Constitution. It is not and was never intended to be. Unfortunately, it is too late to correct the error of allowing federal legislators to expand on what should have been left alone.

It is never too late my friend, and reigning in a beast used to running wild can be difficult but not impossible, and when we know what we are doing, even probable.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
How can we possibly educate people on the true intent of The Constitution for the United States if we cater to the laziness ignorance?...

...It doesn't matter that people don't want to take the time to learn definitions, I don't want to take the time to make my bed and clean the toilet, but the consequences of such laziness does not ever lead to any good. We will never be able to effectively communicate if we don't insist that words be defined precisely and hold consistent with their meaning.

I cede that we must be precise in our declarations. Unfortunately, it is the history of the laziness of ignorance that has landed us where we are today, in an age of compounded ignorance and laziness. Hence, my recommendation that we address some with the simplest of words, in the beginning. We don't serve rib-eyes to an infant, as his system can not process it properly. I think awakening comes in baby steps.

It is never too late my friend, and reigning in a beast used to running wild can be difficult but not impossible, and when we know what we are doing, even probable.

I, sincerely, hope you are correct. As it now stands, I fear greatly for my children and their children

reply to post by WTFover


You make a valid point with your most excellent metaphor of rib eyes, indeed Natural and Inalienable Rights are like the Chateau Briand of freedom! If we must spoon feed pureed carrots to those used to being spoon fed, then at the very least, we can eat that Chateau Briand in front of them and savor every morsel while we wipe the carrot pudding from their chins.

It can be quite frightening these interesting times we live in, but fear is an emotion when faced with the absence of love. Love and compassion, strained carrots for those not ready for the better meals, and careful and diligent wiping of chins, while we endeavor to pull humanity up by their boot straps and march ever closer to universal freedom.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
...we can eat that Chateau Briand in front of them and savor every morsel while we wipe the carrot pudding from their chins...

...diligent wiping of chins, while we endeavor to pull humanity up by their boot straps and march ever closer to universal freedom.

Amen! With any luck, we shall meet someday and the steaks are on me!

reply to post by WTFover


Free people are magnets that stick to each other, where tyrants are magnets that repel each other. God willing we will meet, and I will toast to you and yours and their good health and prosperity, and savor the moment indeed.

The Marbury v. Madison case might be helpful to this discussion. Although Justice Marshall might be a member of "the priestly class" he was also in attendance at the Constitutional Convention. This opinion, among other things, gives us insight to what at least one of the founding fathers thought about the constitution.

One of the poignant quotes of this case is where Marshall, quoting Blackstone, states "it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit, or action at law, when ever that right is invaded."

What does this mean?

Well, if the rights enumerated in the Constitution were granted by God, "natural law," or what have you, there would be no need for a man-made written constitution to secure these rights. God gave the rights to the people and they could not be taken away.

However, we cannot rely on God to protect us every time the government arrests somebody for saying the "wrong" thing or worshiping the "wrong" God. We need some legal remedy, i.e. we need to go to court, when the government prevents us from exercising our rights.

This is where the Constitution comes in. The Constitution just does not enumerate our God given rights. If that is all it did, there would be no need for it. The Constitution is a legally operative document. It forms the basis for a legal remedy whenever a legal right has been violated.

Another quote from the case that is important is when Marshall says, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." According to Marshall, who was a founding father, the judiciary has the solemn responsibility of interpreting the law. You may not like the idea of the "priest class" telling everybody what the law is and is not, but at least according to one founding father, the Constitution allows the judiciary to do this.

reply to post by WTFover


Take note my friend at what one of the priest class has to say about Natural and Inalienable Rights:

Well, if the rights enumerated in the Constitution were granted by God, "natural law," or what have you, there would be no need for a man-made written constitution to secure these rights. God gave the rights to the people and they could not be taken away.

Just as I said, they will insist on ignoring the operative of the definition of Inalienable and re-define it to mean nothing more than that which can't be taken away, necessarily ignoring the operative of non-transferable.

They do this so they may justify their own existence and make remarks such as this:

This is where the Constitution comes in. The Constitution just does not enumerate our God given rights. If that is all it did, there would be no need for it. The Constitution is a legally operative document. It forms the basis for a legal remedy whenever a legal right has been violated.

Making these statements and pretending that common law is not a long history of rights protected without any codification.

Another quote from the case that is important is when Marshall says, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." According to Marshall, who was a founding father, the judiciary has the solemn responsibility of interpreting the law. You may not like the idea of the "priest class" telling everybody what the law is and is not, but at least according to one founding father, the Constitution allows the judiciary to do this.

They rely on quoting their Popes of history to support their assertion that only they and they alone can know the law, and pretend that other men of freedom, such as Thomas Jefferson wasn't incensed at this ruling known as Marbury v Madison, and yet, what this current priest has quoted helps us better understand what Jefferson was so pissed off about in regards to this ruling, and why he declared it a power grab by the courts.

Light up the charcoal and prepare those stakes, my friend, and I'll bring the napkins and wine and beer so we may eat, and drink, and wipe the carrot pudding off of those silly little mystics chins.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


1. I never said that rights can be taken away, but rather in the real world people interfere with basic human rights. Nobody can take away your right to free speech, but people can arrest you, commit violence on your person, etc. if you exercise your duty of free speech. Unless you are relying on a thunderbolt from heaven to help you every time a cop beats you for saying the wrong thing, you need some sort of legal system to protect your rights.

That is where the Constitution comes in. It is a legally operative document that operates to provide a legal remedy when a right is violated or interfered with.

2. With regards to the common law, the common law actually does have a statutory basis. The common law has its basis in writs issued by the kind and statutes issued by the Parliament. These writs and statutes were relatively bare bones, Over the centuries courts have interpreted them and expounded on them, creating the complex body of rules that we know today as the Common Law.

In a way, the Constitution operates as the Common law does. The Constitution is relatively bare bones, but has been expounded on by the courts. The constitution itself is only a few pages long, yet there are hundreds of court cases that expound upon it. If you walk into any Law Library you can find treatises on the Constitution that are hundreds of pages in length.

3. You are right in that a few founding fathers did not like Marbury v. Madison. Here lies the problem when people claim to know the true original intent of the founding fathers, the founding fathers were not a monolithic group. They had many of the same disagreements we have today. How can we say the Constitution has one true original intent if the people that wrote had disagreements over it.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux




Stakes are ready, can someone bring the Holy hand grenade of Antioch.






Oh Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou whilst blow up thine enemies into tiny bits.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

1. I never said that rights can be taken away, but rather in the real world people interfere with basic human rights. Nobody can take away your right to free speech, but people can arrest you, commit violence on your person, etc. if you exercise your duty of free speech. Unless you are relying on a thunderbolt from heaven to help you every time a cop beats you for saying the wrong thing, you need some sort of legal system to protect your rights.

What you did say was that God given rights can't be taken away. God given rights are often framed as Inalienable rights as well, and here is the problem, when God given rights or Inalienable rights are reduced to that which can't be taken away, while ignoring the operative of definition, which is non transferable, then it becomes easier to dismiss rights that can't be taken away by pointing to all who attempt to do so, as you have done. It is either laziness or more insidious, but both God given rights and Inalienable rights are non transferable and from that definition it is implicit they can not justly be taken away. Rights can be taken away and often are, this doesn't in anyway undermine their Natural God given grace, or that they are Inalienable and only underscores the very real fact that there are tyrants out there that could care less about Justice.

Further, your continued insistence that rights need to be legal in order to find protection only disregards the fact that even then injustice happens. Rights were denied slaves for nearly the first 100 years of our Constitutional republic and then even after a Civil War that framed itself as a war to free slaves. It did not matter to Congress, the Executive Branch, and even the SCOTUS, that The Bill of Rights was a clear prohibition on abrogation and derogation of rights with no distinction as to who had those rights, simply that the federal government had no right to abrogate, nor derogate these rights. Even further, all of the original states had, and still have constitutions that also demand that government has no right to trample over Inalienable rights, and yet, governments and people did, and still do.

Thus, your precious legal rights do no more to protect rights than the missing thunderbolts from God do. It takes more than just crafty legislation and codification to protect rights, it is a constant battle for every person who recognizes they have rights, and those rights must be jealously guarded and zealously defended if they are too be protected. Your priestly equivocations do little in protecting those rights and speak more to protecting the privileges that licensed attorneys receive, in spite of the fact that the Constitution expressly forbids any title of nobility.

That is where the Constitution comes in. It is a legally operative document that operates to provide a legal remedy when a right is violated or interfered with.

Yeah, right! This is why federal judges are insisting that people don't have the right to represent themselves in court; Martinez v. California Court of Appeals...so much for no titles of nobility!!!!! Here, your precious Pope Justice Stevens blatantly ignores the actual language of the 6th Amendment that makes clear that people have the right to assistance of counsel, and grossly misconstrues that language to mean representation, in spite of the fact that representation is not what predicates assistance of counsel. Further, I don't know of a single attorney that will represent a client without first having that client sign over power of attorney. I may be wrong, and perhaps there are attorneys who will represent a client without demanding that client sign over power of attorney. Am I wrong? Do you represent clients without demanding they sign over power of attorney?

2. With regards to the common law, the common law actually does have a statutory basis. The common law has its basis in writs issued by the kind and statutes issued by the Parliament. These writs and statutes were relatively bare bones, Over the centuries courts have interpreted them and expounded on them, creating the complex body of rules that we know today as the Common Law.

This may be what they are teaching in law school about common law, but it is a gross misrepresentation of what common law actually is. In its simplest terms common law is established by following earlier judicial decisions. Your assertions that it has its basis in writs issued by statutes issued by the Parliament is fallacious and just more defense of lawyerly privilege over the rights of people.

COMMON LAW

That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S. that is based on precedent instead of statutory laws.

www.lectlaw.com...

In a way, the Constitution operates as the Common law does. The Constitution is relatively bare bones, but has been expounded on by the courts. The constitution itself is only a few pages long, yet there are hundreds of court cases that expound upon it. If you walk into any Law Library you can find treatises on the Constitution that are hundreds of pages in length.

In a way, yes it does, in that The Constitution is rooted in common law principles, and not because the Constitution is relatively bare bones. Case law can operate as common law in that it is a precedent set that functions as legal reasoning for similar cases, but the minute the priest class judges and lawyers deign to redefine what common law is and insist only their definition matters, then common law becomes useless to the people who have relied upon it since time immemorial.

3. You are right in that a few founding fathers did not like Marbury v. Madison. Here lies the problem when people claim to know the true original intent of the founding fathers, the founding fathers were not a monolithic group. They had many of the same disagreements we have today. How can we say the Constitution has one true original intent if the people that wrote had disagreements over it.

First, it should be noted that the unanimous decision of Marbury v Madison, was a 4-0 decision, not the 9-0 it would have been if unanimously decided today, and it is dubious that such a decision would have found unanimous decision today. Many legal scholars have challenged the legal reasoning behind Marbury v Madison. That said, I am inclined to agree with the implicit right of judicial review, but when lawyers deign to rely on Marbury v. Madison to dismiss the validity of Natural Law and Inalienable Rights, then I take issue and strongly so. How ironic then, that you argue that the founding fathers were not a monolithic group when you yourself rely so heavily upon the monotheism of The SCOTUS.

Revolutions can be brought about either peacefully or violently. It is no doubt time for a revolution, and I advocate a peaceful one. In this revolution, I do not wish to show the great disrespect to that remarkable Bard known as William Shakespeare and grossly misrepresent his quote from Henry VI, which is; "first kill all the lawyers". That quote is oft' taken out of context to suggest that Shakespeare himself was actually advocating such an idea. He was not, nor am I. That said, lawyers today are licensed and registered with the American BAR Association, but it should not be lost on a single soul that BAR stands for British Accreditation Regency, and the nobility this title seeks to bestow upon a single profession is, quite frankly, un-American.

If a lawyer can offer competent assistance of counsel, then they are worthy of respect, but if that lawyer believes that competent assistance of counsel means accepting any legislation that comes down the pike as valid, if that lawyer believes that it is better to plea bargain and have their client accept a criminal conviction in the name of expedience, if that lawyer believes that competent assistance of counsel means lecturing their client on what law is and isn't, and would argue that law is not self evident, then in my not so humble opinion, that lawyer is less than competent. If I am going to pay the exorbitant prices a lawyer charges in order to gain competent assistance of counsel, I sure as hell won't be signing over any power of attorney, and I will never again, (as my first experience with a lawyer was such) tolerate the smug arrogance of a clown who believes lecturing me about the law, on my dime, is competent assistance of counsel.

It was only after I fired that first lawyer I ever had experience with, that he suddenly changed his tune and stopped treating me as dumb ass kid who didn't know his ass from his elbow and began paying me the respect I deserved, and while that attorney was angry that I went behind his back and began negotiating my own deal, after explaining to him I didn't trust him, and after he advising me, on my dime, that if I couldn't trust him, then I should walk out of his office and find another lawyer, of which I replied I had friends giving me the same damn advice for free and fired him, that he decided it was in his best interest to accept the legal work I had done on my behalf as valid, and my problems went away that day.

The law is the law, and law is not made by humans, it is either discovered, or it is not. Given that law is self evident, discovery is just not that difficult.



[edit on 24-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

I prefer the hanger steak. :-)

Is anyone familiar with the Restore America Plan?

Originally posted by ComeAndGetMe
I prefer the hanger steak. :-)

Is anyone familiar with the Restore America Plan?

Yep, I misspelled steak and didn't catch it until it was too late to edit it. I am vaguely aware of the Restore America Plan and have read many threads here on the issue, and a few other websites, but by no means feel I can speak to it intelligently. Maybe endisnighe can when he comes on line.

This discussion and debate has slowly been placed into the deep dark recesses of ATS; it deserves to be thrust back into the light.

It is telling to see that generally members that either agree with Jean Paul or the subject matter at hand are the only participants, yet those that oppose or have made slights against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are quite absent from the discussion.

I challenge those that oppose the subject matter and the stance and arguments presented, to engage and become part of the philosophical discussion at hand. It is a way to strengthen your views and understanding of a subject by engaging those that have a direct and opposite stance as your own. Through civil, yet sometimes heated debate and discussion we can all gain a better understanding and knowledge.

Earlier I stated that this was a philosophical discussion. It is a philosophical in nature because of the questions that derive from understanding what and where our Rights derive from. Just as Plato, in The Republic set out to understand Just and Unjust among Men and State.

Ultimately the failure of the People to maintain the discussion upon Rights has been the politician’s hopes and dreams. As this allows them to take advantage of the ignorance to achieve their gains and ultimately, power.

Maybe this larger discussion on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; or as Jean Paul so aptly coined this topic as The Constitution and the Bill of Maybes?, should be broken into smaller discussions to be understood.

While I may be inclined to do such, I shall not infringe upon my friend’s topic and scope. I shall then engage further on the whole of the subject presented.

I first ask the question, what makes a ‘right’? This question was answered, I believe in the Declaration of Independence when the following was penned:

‘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.’(1)

What makes a right is that which falls within and under the scope of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now, I see the argument at which some could bring forth; that only basing one’s rights upon such basic tenets opens the door for unjust persons to take liberty in that statement to do what they wish in their own endeavors’ to obtain life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

While such is true, it cannot be applied to society without one infringing upon their fellow man in which they are attempting to co-exist with. A man, in the pursuit of happiness, deprives his neighbor of the same pursuit by stealing their possessions. While happiness was obtained by the one that obtained via unjust means, that very right was infringed upon and deprived of the later.

To first obtain happiness, we must secure liberty. As a freeman that holds liberty, happiness is achieved. To obtain liberty we must first have life. Without life secured, both liberty and the ability to pursue happiness are unachievable and even worse, unfathomable. In fact, we can reverse the order and see that without the ability to pursue happiness, we can be denied liberty. By denying liberty, life is thus stolen from us. They are dependant upon and rely greatly one the understanding that without one, the others nothing.

Going further, we can see that our Founding Fathers further established these concepts within the Preamble of the Constitution (Note: The following is derived from Federalist Papers No. 84 and is from a draft of the Constitution.)

"WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America."(2)

.

Further understanding upon this profound, yet simple proclamation can be found in the Federalist Papers, No. 84(3), when Alexander Hamilton stated the following, “Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.” This quote is in relation to the Bill of Rights, but I also believe it pertains to the core issue of the Peoples’ Rights declared within the Declaration of Independence.

Hamilton points out that the declarations put forth, the People surrender nothing to anyone or any government and they retain every thing. Pertaining to the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they are the means to the end. Without such, the ‘rights’ declared later to the People within the Bill of Rights are nothing.

So to answer, what makes a ‘right’? A right is that which allows the Individual the ability to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while never infringing upon another’s stated right. If my declared right infringes upon yours, and vice versa, then that no longer becomes a right as it violates the stated principles in what makes a right.

Sources:
(1) Declaration of Indepdence
(2),(3)Federalist Papers No. 84