posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:22 PM
The authority of the authority...
After having some heated, although relatively cordial debate in some of these threads it came to my attention that the attitudes of some on this board
and the words chosen by some are commensurate with holding the opinion that the authority CHOOSES to allow our rights to exist...
This led me to feel the need to supply a crash course in how our government is setup relative to some other governments and WHY a lot of the things
that our government has decided to do are illegal (regardless of what the supreme court states).
First off, let's talk about police powers. Police have no more implicit power than you, I, or any other citizen of the United States. This includes
all types of law enforcement.
The AUTHORITY they have is to enforce the law, the law that the people have granted their representatives the authority to implement. That authority
is not without restriction, therefore the laws they pass cannot be passed without restriction. This is true at the highest levels and the lowest
There is a difference however. The difference is this; the people have granted enumerated powers to the Federal government and enumerated restrictions
to the State governments, municipalities and even the People.
Any law that is enacted that goes beyond these enumerated powers and restrictions are illegal, regardless of whether or not those people that the
people have placed in authority agree or not.
Beyond that, no one has the authority that the people have not granted them.
The people have granted law enforcement the authority to enforce the law, with the restriction that they swear an oath to uphold the highest law, the
rights of the people.
This means that the honor of the individual is at stake whenever they enforce a law that goes beyond the authority granted by the people. They also
become subject to actions BY the people when they do not stay within the authority granted TO them BY the People.
This is also true of the representatives of the people who are granted the authority to enact laws. They also are required to swear an oath to uphold
the highest law, the rights of the people.
The rights of the people are not subject to interpretation, the people granted the authority to representatives the ability to change the highest law
and the means to do so.
It requires 2/3rds of both houses, and 3/4ths of the states to change those rights.
What does that mean??? What is implied by 3/4ths of the states. We know how that has been practiced in the past, but we also know that our
representatives have not held to their oaths and our law enforcement have not held to their oaths either.
The states refer to the people. Those rights that were held to be self evident should not be changed for transient reasons, in fact it is arguable
that the rights as enumerated in the bill of rights are endowed by our creator and cannot be changed at all, but for the purposes of this statement,
let's say that they can be changed.
I have not seen ANY constitutional amendment giving the government the authority to suspend habeas corpus? I have not seen any constitutional
amendment giving government the authority to search persons or seize property without reasonable suspicion confirmed by the issuance of a warrant
describing the person or places to be searched and the items to be seized??
Yet, I see these rights be trampled on every day without recourse....
What did our founders have to say about this occurring???
"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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security." (Declaration of Independence).
"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place
them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know
which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a
Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings
should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry
have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them,
the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves.
Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a
rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20.
years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to
the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each
state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon
and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots
and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment
they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." -
Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787
I wanted to quote the 'Refreshing of the Tree of Liberty' in its' entirety because the single quote is so often misconstrued...