Another Fine Mess: Our Disappearing Rights

(Article changed on September 23, 2013 at 20:27)

(Article changed on September 22, 2013 at 14:09)

If you are at all interested in this article by its title, then you likely have been following the downward trend of the United States of America and the associated civil liberties that came with the birth of this nation.  There seems to be a well-coordinated effort to attack this citizenry from every side, not only to rob us of our liberties (and money), but also to divide us so that there is little hope that we will ever find enough common ground to turn things around.  Until "we the pawns" understand the enemy that is undermining our liberties, there really is no hope of finding cooperation between current political thoughts in this country.  The negative attitudes exchanged from all sides are overwhelmingly disheartening.  I have friends on multiple sides of the political spectrum, and the hatred exhibited in postings and forwarded graphics only serves to cement the "divide and conquer" strategy to which we find ourselves being subjected.
 

Appreciating what we do have

In the matter of protecting our rights, I am a proponent of working with what exists--namely, the Constitution--as, in our present circumstances, this would be more likely to ensure the protection of the rights that previous generations have enjoyed.   I am acutely aware that many have little to no respect for the Constitution any longer and often believe that hopes and appeals to it are useless in today's world (see here and here).   Hopefully, my small contribution here will help to minimize the damage such negative opinions of the Constitution may have propagated among the populace. 

I might first remind you that the framers were not totally happy with the Constitution as signed, either.   I suppose we should not chide anyone for that belief today, but what of an alternative?   Some have suggested either replacing the Constitution with something totally different, creating a new constitution, or completely overhauling the existing one.   We have been seeing tremendous pressure on the dollar both from large, failed corporations and from their government cronies, who have been providing them with bail-outs using our monetary resources and labor, all on top of the efforts to destroy our rights (probably a coordinated assault--deep politics at work).   But consider what kind of influence the "banksters" (as we have come to define them, thus far) would likely have in such a process.   Today, we see their undeniable influence in both the legislative and executive branches, so it is doubtful we would ever be able to prevent them from influencing a convention.   Predicted result:   By allowing any major change in the foundation of our government, we would likely lose much more than we would gain as a people.  

Coordinated efforts, as I interpret them, to make the U.S. and its people into an expendable or inconsequential entity have been utilizing subtle steps to reach that point.  The idea of the freedoms represented by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, along with a nation that recognizes (or used to recognize) inalienable rights just does not sit right with super-elites that seek total control.  They see it as their calling to be our managers.  One of the best ways I have heard it expressed was in a movie: A Face in the Crowd, which was a major event of Andy Griffith's career.  He played the part of a country drifter who finds himself thrust into the national spotlight because of his humorous talents.  Enter an influential elitist who sees the potential to sway the masses through the television appearances of Griffith's character.  Leading up to his desire to use Griffith in this way, he states, "[M]y study of history has convinced me that in every strong society from the Egyptians on, the masses had to be guided with a strong hand by a responsible elite" (spoken by the character General Haynesworth).

Let's take a look at how elites manipulate our view of the Constitution to help their goal of eliminating it.   This will be presented from the viewpoint of an amateur (myself) against the wise and learned experts that the elite enlist to slyly move public opinion against the Constitution.   I like amateur interpretations better because the Constitution was written for the common man and was meant to be understood by him.   About a year ago, I had the chance to attend a Constitution Day event at a local Purdue campus given by Professor Frank J. Colucci, who stated that he thought it dangerous to leave the Constitution only to courts, judges and lawyers, and that the document was never meant to be complicated.     He quoted Chief Justice John Marshall in speaking of the lack of legalese in the Constitution, and that if it had been wordy in that way, it "could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public" (taken from McCulloch v. Maryland ).  Professor Colucci further commented that Constitutional arguments--whatever their basis in legal reasoning, rhetoric, and precedent--ought to be accessible to the public.
 

Expert manipulation of our views of the Constitution

Expert opinion (A):   Source--National Archives and Records Administration, Assertion--"When James Madison drafted the amendments to the Constitution that were to become the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon the ideas put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights."

Amateur opinion:   Virginia 's Declaration of Rights was written in 1776, whereas when Virginia ratified the Constitution in 1788, they submitted a list of suggested rights to be included in a bill of rights along with the official ratification document.   From a perusal of the language of both the 1776 Declaration and the 1788 proposals, we see considerable language from the newer document that made it into the Bill of Rights, but which was never included in the earlier 1776 Declaration.   Therefore, the National Archives err in asserting that Madison was more influenced by the older document, thereby ignoring the more important language he actually took from the newer thoughts gleaned from the experience of the American Revolution.   The omission has the effect of changing the history of how our Bill of Rights came to us.  

Examples:

1) "that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others", which made it into our current First Amendment as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  The 1776 Declaration had no such language.

2) "freedom of speech" stated in the 1788 proposal, which phrase does not appear in the 1776 Declaration (it only included "freedom of the press").

3) Our current Third Amendment, re: housing of soldiers in time of peace, is exclusive to the 1788 proposal; no mention whatsoever in the 1776 Declaration.

4) From our Fourth Amendment, re: no unreasonable searches, etc., the following familiar words and phrases are exclusively from the newer 1788 Virginia proposals and not mentioned in the 1776 Declaration:   "right," "to be secure," "unreasonable searches and seizures," "oath or affirmation," "describing the place."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).