Git-Mirrors/textfiles-politics
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git synced 2024-12-18 04:04:34 -05:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
ea5425869a
textfiles-politics/politicalTextFiles/rights.txt

474 lines
30 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

adding political text files folder
2023-02-20 12:59:23 -05:00
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 ....

Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink