

                               RIGHTS GUARANTEED                                                     
               
               Let's eyeball the Bill of Rights,  the first  10 amend-
          ments to the Constitution.
               Now we  will really see some fancy magic by the Cult of
          the Black  Robes.    Decision  after  decision  from federal
          courts across the United States magically become 'law'.  The
          Bill of  Rights bears  no resemblance  to the  way they were
          originally written.
               When ratifying  the Constitution, the states felt there
          were not enough restrictions on the power of the new central
          government.   They requested  that a Bill of Rights be added
          at the first opportunity.    Many  argued  that  no  bill of
          rights was  needed.  Alexander Hamilton said, "The truth is,
          after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitu-
          tion is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful
          purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS." 
               Hamilton insisted there was nothing in the Constitution
          which would  allow the government to assume powers which the
          bill of rights sought to protect.   To  reduce the  fears of
          some of  the states,  the First  Congress proposed 12 amend-
          ments to the various states for ratification.

               Here is the preamble to the Bill of Rights as they were
          submitted:  "The  conventions  of  a  number  of the States,
          having at  the  time  of  their  adopting  the Constitution,
          expressed a  desire, in  order to prevent misconstruction or
          abuse of its powers,  that further  declaratory and restric-
          tive clauses  should be  added:  And as extending the ground
          of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the
          beneficent ends of its institution. .  " 

               The  intent  of  the  First  Congress  when the Bill of
          Rights were assembled. . 'In order  to prevent  abuse of its
          powers, we  are going to include further restrictions on the
          central government  to promote  the general  welfare, make a
          more  perfect   union,  establish  justice  and  secure  the
          blessings of liberty.' 
               Every clause in the first ten amendments is  a restric-
          tion on  the government.  It's not how they interpret it nor
          how some judge decides it should apply . . . it's a restric-
          tion, period!
               The first  two of  the proposed  12 amendments were not
          ratified by the states.  The  first concerned representation
          in Congress  and the  second with  restricting Congress from
          raising its salary.  The first  eight amendments  are really
          specific restrictions  and the  last two cover any issue not
          covered in the first  eight.   The ninth  and tenth  are the
          ones government ignores the most.
               The First  Amendment prohibits  the restriction of your
          religious freedoms which we have already  covered in earlier
          sections.   It covers freedom of speech but if you speak out
          against sensitive issues, you'll be surprised  how fast they
          
          will shut you up.
               Many people were recently arrested for demonstrating in
          front of the Supreme Court, and in front of the  White House
          and Congress.  What about the farmers demonstrating in front
          of the Chicago Board of  Trade  or  people  involved  in the
          abortion issue?  Can we still peaceably assemble?  Today you
          are free to assemble when the government tells you it  is OK
          otherwise, you  will probably end up in jail.  The charge is
          generally 'criminal trespass'.  What?   Where did  they find
          that one?
               This  is  a  right  which  has been turned upside down.
          About par for the course, isn't it?   By what authority does
          government at any level ignore these restrictive clauses?
               The last  clause is the right to petition for a redress
          of grievances.  This  is one  which has  fallen into disuse.
          Do you feel you have a grievance against the government?  
               The  word  redress  means  to right a wrong, correct an
          error, remedy or relieve, to correct or reform.  Now  do you
          have  a  grievance  that  you  would like to have redressed?
          Submit a petition. 
               There is no specific  form to  use.   The 1st Amendment
          does not  specify to which branch of government the petition
          has to be sent.   Any  branch,  department,  section, court,
          commission,  etc.,  must  accept  your  petition.  They must
          answer and redress what you are complaining about.   This is
          a right every reader should exert!
               At  the  end  of  the  book,  you'll  find  a copy of a
          Petition For Redress of Grievances.  It's an  ASCII file and
          can be  printed out  on any  printer.  It includes the First
          Amendment to show  those  to  whom  you  are  directing your
          petition  that  you  know  the  amendment.   It gives them a
          chance to read it if they don't know what it says.  Print it
          then lay out your complaint in your own words. 
               The simpler  you explain  what you  want corrected, the
          less chance there is for any bureaucrat to misinterpret what
          you are  trying to get across.  Also cite whatever provision
          of the constitution you are showing has been violated.
               You might cite the full Ninth  and Tenth  Amendments to
          prove  that  the  persons  to  whom  you are addressing your
          petition have no authority to assume any powers not specifi-
          cally granted in the Constitution.
               If you are wrong, they will let you know in a hurry.  I
          wouldn't accept their answers at face  value but  check them
          out against my own interpretation of the Constitution and go
          after them again. 
               You are perfectly free to address  it to  anyone in the
          government,  be  it  your  own  representative, senator, the
          President or Vice-president, the  head  of  a  department, a
          judge, the  Supreme Court,  whomever!  Every bureaucrat with
          an ounce of so called power  in government  should receive a
          petition for redress. 
               A  likely  place  to  show  the people what answers are
          returned would  be to  write letters  to the  editors of any
          newspaper in the country.
               This Right to Petition for Redress is a tremendous tool
          for American citizens  which  has  not  been  used  for many
          years.   It is an area in the Bill of Rights with which they
          have no experience ignoring so we should make  extensive use
          of this right.  
               Now  the  Second  Amendment.    The  judicial branch of
          government,  our  protectors,   have   effectively  disarmed
          Americans! 
               Look  at  the  "gun  laws" which courts have upheld all
          over the country.    Our  'leaders'  have  decided  that you
          should not own a handgun, assault rifle or a machine gun for
          that matter.  What  gives them  the right  to decide  that? 
          Arms  are  defined  as  "Weapons,  especially firearms."  It
          doesn't say only firearms so where do they make the distinc-
          tion? 
               It's plain  that the  "right of  the people to keep and
          bear arms shall not  be infringed."   It  has nothing  to do
          with the militia!
               This  is  part  of  those  declaratory  and restrictive
          clauses added to prevent a misconstruction or abuse  of it's
          powers. 
               They can do nothing which will keep an American citizen
          from owning any weapon he or she desires.  It's that simple!
          This was a unique stance for any government to guarantee its
          citizens the right to own weapons.   Switzerland  is another
          which has such a guarantee. 
               Where does  it say that arms need to be registered?  No
          where!    This  is  part  of  the  prohibition  on Congress.
          Registration is  a dangerous  practice and  must be stopped.
          You don't have to look  too  far  into  history  to  see why
          government wants a list of owners of weapons . . . then it's
          no problem to visit everyone  on  the  list  and  demand the
          weapon be  turned in.   That  is while they hold a weapon on
          the owner.
               We have  had  presidents  shot  in  our  history, other
          people in government have been shot but the Second Amendment
          has stood firm. 
               Suddenly, in the early  sixties,  we  have  a president
          shot (under  circumstances that  suggest it was other than a
          plain  citizen),  then  his  brother  is  shot  and  now all
          Americans are dangerous and should no longer be able to buy,
          have or keep weapons.  Isn't that strange? 
               Why were the major gun laws passed in 1968 and not when
          other  presidents  were  killed?    Is this part of what the
          courts call "public policy" and the  Constitution be damned?
          It's a  policy to  get the  weapons away  from Americans for
          purposes other than some public official may be shot.
               You hear much talk about guns being authorized only for
          the militia  which is  gobbledygook.  Here are statements of
          several  states  when  they  ratified  the  Constitution and
          requested a  Bill of  Rights:   "The people  have a right to
          keep  and  bear  arms;    that  a  well  regulated  militia,
          including the body of the people CAPABLE OF BEARING ARMS, is
          the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;".
          
               Notice the semicolon after  keep  and  bear  arms.  . .
          There  is  no  connection  of  that  statement  to  the well
          regulated militia.   These  are  two  complete  and separate
          statements.
               Perhaps they no longer want us to be a free State.
               The State  of New Hampshire was even more direct in its
          demand on the arms issue.  "Congress shall  never disarm any
          citizen unless such are or have been in rebellion." 
               The  people  of  those  times would have never given up
          their weapons whether they were a  member of  the militia or
          not!   The same  applies today.   No  one is forced to own a
          gun.  And no one has the right to tell  a citizen  he or she
          cannot own a gun whatever shape or form it may take.  
               Our  'leaders'  have  probably suddenly discovered that
          they bleed as we do.  They want to take away your weapons to
          reduce their  chance of  bleeding!  That is ridiculous also.
          The persons intent on doing bodily harm to  anyone will find
          a way  to get  the weapon  they need  regardless of what the
          government has to say about weapons.
               If everyone owned a weapon, whether  it be  a hand gun,
          rifle, shotgun  or even  a machine gun, there would be a lot
          less violence with weapons. 
               The two incidents recently, one in  New York  City, the
          other in  Chicago show that Americans have a right to defend
          themselves.   The public  and law  enforcement officials are
          solidly behind the idea that citizens have that right.  Some
          of the elected officials are not so happy about it. 
               So what is the purpose  of  gun  laws?    Simply people
          control.
               New York  City has  the first and strictest gun control
          law on the books and what good does it serve?  If people are
          intent on committing violence, they will use screwdrivers or
          baseball bats.  Are they going to outlaw  screwdrivers next?
          Nonsense.
               Look  at  Switzerland  .  .  . Every able bodied man is
          trained in weapons and issued a weapon to keep in  his home,
          ready always.   Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the
          world.  There is a lesson there; gun control is an insult to
          the American people.
               Government spends  billions on all sorts of weapons but
          feels the citizen who has  a  constitutional  right  to have
          weapons is  not to  be trusted owning a handgun.  Is it just
          because they do it and the  "guardian of  our rights" decide
          they will rubber stamp it because it is 'public policy' now?
               How did a clause  designed to  be a  restriction on big
          brother  get  turned  around  to become a restriction on the
          people who delegated the right to be governed?
               Another recent issue in the area  of the  2nd Amendment
          shows the  contempt the  bureaucracy has  for us  . . bullet
          proof vests.  There is a proposal floating around that would
          outlaw anyone  except law  enforcement personnel from owning
          or wearing a bullet proof vest. 
               There will be exceptions to allow  our leaders  to wear
          one if  they desire.   They  just want  to make certain that
          
          they will not bleed but we will.  How about that?   
               How many people  would  go  through  the  expense  of a
          bullet proof  vest is  questionable.  Yet they have no right
          to "pass a law" saying we can't own one.  
               Every American citizen should  own at  least one weapon
          and know  how to  use it  proficiently.   Should an incident
          arise, you must be able to protect yourself  or family.   If
          you have  a weapon  and never  have to use it, what have you
          lost?  Nothing . . . and that is the point.
               Every time there  is  an  incident  involving  a weapon
          where several  people are shot or killed, idiots come out of
          the woodwork screaming for more gun control.   Yet some jerk
          can drive  an automobile  into a  crowd and kill five or six
          people.  No one says we should outlaw automobiles .  . . yet
          these people are as dead . . .
               Let me  point out now that we have gone through all the
          points on 'keeping and bearing arms'. . . I am  NOT a member
          of any gun club or NRA.  I just believe in our Constitution.
               The Third  Amendment is  one which is mainly the result
          of the Revolutionary War. .  "No soldier  shall be quartered
          in any  house. .   "  but this should be considered together
          with the  intent of  the 2nd  Amendment.   It reinforces the
          reason for  the 2nd.   I sincerely hope we never have to try
          to force the issue of soldiers in American homes through our
          kangaroo court system.
               "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
          houses, papers,  and effects,  against unreasonable searches
          and seizures,  shall not  be violated. .  " and if you still
          believe that, I have a  piece  of  ocean  front  property in
          Arizona I want to sell.
               The people  of the  colonies had  a lot of trouble with
          searches and seizures which were conducted by the Kings men.
          They  used  "Writs  of  Assistance"  which  were papers they
          carried in their pockets.  They would simply fill out a name
          and hand  it to  the individual  and they had the 'right' to
          search their home. 
               There was no need to show "probable cause" or to  get a
          warrant  from  a  judicial  officer,  they  just  went  in a
          person's home and looked and took whatever they decided they
          wanted.  See the reason for the 4th Amendment?  
               Now the courts have decided that the police can stop an
          automobile, search it and seize  what  they  find  without a
          warrant.  The executive branch has been given 'authority' to
          go  to  your  bank  and  get  all  your  records  and papers
          (Internal  Revenue  Service)  without even letting you know.
          They can go to the telephone company and get all the records
          of your calls, etc. 
               Apparently  youngsters  in  school  are  not  people as
          defined in  the 4th  Amendment because  school officials can
          open a  locker and  search whenever they want.  Does the 4th
          Amendment say schools or school  kids  are  exempt  from the
          restriction? 
               People  who  are  only  accused  of  a 'crime' have had
          papers taken without search warrants and even had the papers
          
          confiscated without any authority in our Constitution.  Case
          after case the courts have watered down the Fourth Amendment
          until it is now practically nonexistent.  Why?
               More usurpation of the protections we are guaranteed in
          the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.   We must assume
          control of our government!
               When we speak of the Fifth Amendment, most people think
          of "someone  invoking  the  Fifth"  or  refusing  to testify
          against himself.  (Judges have it even easier, all they have
          to say is it is frivolous.)  But  the Fifth  Amendment is an
          involved amendment and contains a bunch of guarantees.
               There are  many parts  to the  5th Amendment. . No  one
          shall be tried for the same crime twice. .  No one  shall be
          held  to  answer  for  a  capital  or  infamous crime except
          through a Grand Jury. .  No one is required to be  a witness
          against  himself.  .  .  Nor  can any citizen be deprived of
          life, liberty or property without due process of law. .  Nor
          can private  property be  taken for  public use without just
          compensation!  That's a load of protection for us.
               The 5th Amendment is more dead than the  4th Amendment.
          There are some judges who will not even allow the 5th Amend-
          ment to be mentioned in their  courtrooms.   Do you remember
          what their oath said? 
               All the  clauses of this amendment are important to our
          survival but the most important part  is:   "nor be deprived
          of life,  liberty, or property, without due process of law."
          This  about  covers  all  the  other  issues  of  the entire
          amendment.
               Now  courts  are  trying  to decide or demanding that a
          citizen define due process.  More judicial buffoonery!  What
          is  the  'law'?    First, our Constitution and secondly, all
          laws passed in conformance with the Constitution. 
               If your papers  are  seized  without  a  warrant parti-
          cularly  describing the papers to be seized, this is not due
          process.  Any reader can  figure  from  that  just  what due
          process is. 
               Did  you  agree  to  allow  our rights to be ignored or
          purposely violated?   If  we have  all these  rights and the
          entire government  must respect  and protect them, how could
          they possibly do their job?
               In the Sixth Amendment,  we  examine  the  rights  of a
          person who is accused of a crime.  The accused has the right
          to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury where the
          crime was to have been committed. 
               The accused  also has  the right  to be informed of the
          nature and cause of the crime he/she is  being charged with.
          Also to  be confronted  by the  witnesses against him.  They
          also have the right to have the government pay for witnesses
          if the  accused can't afford to pay to have them testify for
          him.   Further, they  have the  right to  have assistance of
          counsel for their defense.
               Most  of  this  amendment  has been turned around.  The
          speedy trial requirement has usually been  observed.  Public
          trial has  not.  There have been many instances where judges
          
          decide what  will be  made public  violating this amendment.
          They  claim  they  have  'discretion'  to decide that point.
          Where does this amendment allow for that discretion?
               An impartial jury is  a requirement  being ignored more
          and more.   Government  prosecutors have been known to check
          backgrounds  of  potential  jurors   through  computers  and
          eliminate those  who would  not be  favorable to their side.
          They deny this saying this could never happen in our system.
          But they don't always tell the truth as we have seen. 
               We spoke  earlier about  the necessity  of an impartial
          jury trying the law  as well  as the  supposed crime.   When
          pressed about  this, the  federales will admit that the jury
          has the  right to  try the  law also  but feel  they are not
          required to inform the jury of this fact. 
               It  is  most  important  that any accused person have a
          truly impartial jury as  required  by  this  amendment.   It
          should not  be necessary  for a person accused of a crime to
          have to try to prove that  the jury  was biased  in any way.
          This is  one of those sneaky points where the government can
          get away with handpicking the jury to assure a conviction. 
               If a jury is truly impartial, you should be able  to go
          out into  the street  and pick  the first  twelve people you
          meet to be jurors.  
               Having the  right to  be confronted  with the witnesses
          against him  is also by the wayside.  Now we have undercover
          agents who simply make an accusation and are  protected from
          appearing as required by this amendment. 
               Must protect their identity . . . they say.  What about
          this constitutional requirement?  
               The right to counsel has been  twisted out  of recogni-
          tion.    According  to  the  judges and courts, when it says
          counsel, it means attorney or lawyer. 
               But it  doesn't  say  that.    Counsel  has  never been
          defined  as  an  attorney.    Judges  and  attorneys are all
          members of the same  fraternity.    They  have  decided that
          counsel means attorney to keep their friends working.
               Why  should  it  matter  to  a  court  if  you  have an
          attorney?  They require an attorney because attorneys  are a
          member  of  the  court.    The  courts  will  then force the
          attorney to follow their rules and sacrifice your  rights in
          order not  to upset the judge or court.  If you were accused
          of a crime and you knew a person who was not an attorney but
          was well  versed in  law, you have the right under the Sixth
          Amendment to have him assist you in your defense. 
               Judges enjoy amending  the  Constitution  and  you will
          have  a  fight  on  your  hands to insist that this right be
          respected.  But,  what  is  a  little  fight  with  a public
          servant?    Remember  .  .  .  the judicial branch considers
          rights as fighting words.
               The Seventh Amendment assures the right to a jury trial
          in a  civil case  according to  the practice  of common law.
          Common law practice came to this country from  Great Britain
          and was  used throughout  the original  thirteen colonies at
          the time the Constitution was adopted.  For  a good explana-
          
          tion of common law, purchase a copy of The Federalist Papers
          and read paper #83 by Alexander Hamilton.
               The right to a  trial by  jury in  a criminal  case has
          already been  guaranteed in  the basic  document.  Neverthe-
          less, the states wanted this further restriction.  The right
          in  a  civil  case  where  the  value in controversy exceeds
          twenty dollars shall be preserved.  The case  could be tried
          before a  judge alone  but only  if the  parties in the suit
          agree to waive the jury. 
               This also means that  each  citizen  is  guaranteed the
          right to  demand a  jury trial  anytime they are assessed by
          big brother, whether it be a  fine or  an assessment  by the
          Internal Revenue  Service.   That any  controversy where the
          value exceeds twenty dollars, you have the right  under this
          amendment  to  demand  that  the  fact  be  tried  before an
          impartial jury.   This  was included  to prevent overzealous
          actions by the central government and their agents.
               The  Eighth   Amendment  forbids  the  government  from
          demanding excessive bail  where,  considering  the financial
          circumstances of  the individual,  the government could keep
          someone in jail for an indefinite period where  the needs of
          justice would not be served.
               It's obvious  that this practice has been turned around
          because judges will decide that they want to hold someone in
          jail and  set excessive  bail requirements.  There again, we
          find judges amending the Constitution violating Article V of
          the basic  document.  They have decided . . . It's as simple
          as that!
               The men who wrote  the  Constitution  and  the  Bill of
          Rights knew  they could  not cover  all the  events and cir-
          cumstances that might happen in the future so  they included
          two more amendments as "catch-alls." 
               The  Ninth  and  Tenth  Amendments.    The  first eight
          amendments were abuses which  the  colonists  suffered under
          British  Royal  rule  and  were  spelled out as prohibitions
          against the national  government.    Now  to  make  sure the
          government was  kept inside  the fence  of delegated powers,
          they included the Ninth Amendment. 
               It reads as follows:  "THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITU-
          TION, OF  CERTAIN RIGHTS,  SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR
          DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."   The  Ninth makes
          it unmistakably  clear that  the government cannot and could
          not  interfere  with any  rights which  the people retained.    
          These  include  an endless list of things not spelled out in
          the first eight amendments.  A citizen has  the right  to do
          or not  do whatever  he or she pleases as long as the rights
          of others are not violated.  Of course those choices must be
          in keeping  with the  JUST laws  which conform  with and are
          passed in pursuance of the Constitution.
               Now let's again take a look at what the Tenth Amendment
          spells out:   "THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES
          BY THE CONSTITUTION NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO  THE STATES, ARE
          RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY OR TO THE PEOPLE."
               How  do  they  get  away with police powers, making any
          
          thing but gold and silver coin as tender, allowing a private
          corporation  control  the  value  of our money, establishing
          crimes, etc?  These two amendments simply point out what was
          true  .  .  .  That  the new government was one of specific,
          limited, enumerated powers delegated by us.  
               Have they faithfully  observed  these  amendments?   Of
          course not.   Now  you can  see why  the national government
          ignores these two amendments.    They  show  absolutely that
          they are forbidden from doing anything which was not spelled
          out.
               These two amendments are  the 'yardsticks'  by which we
          can  judge  whether  any  branch  of  government,  be it the
          legislative,  executive  or  judicial,   is  exceeding  it's
          authority.  Is our Constitution dead?  It's up to you.
               Let's read in part what the Declaration of Independence
          says about rights being violated:    "That  to  secure these
          rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men.  .  That,
          whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these
          ends, it  is the right of the people to alter or abolish it,
          and to institute a new government. .  [when we are forced to
          suffer] a  long train  of abuses  and usurpations.  .  It is
          their right, it is their duty,  to throw  off such   govern-
          ment, and to provide new guards for their security." 
               Our  government,  under  constitutional  standards, has
          only three  functions.  They are (1)  DELIVER OUR  MAIL, (2)
          DEFEND OUR  SHORES and  (3) STAY  THE HELL OUT OF OUR LIVES!
          There is nothing further!  They have NO OTHER POWER.


                  REGISTRATION DETAILS COMING UP ....

                     THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT ....
          
