oops-formating error on previous post
So I just read the constitution and all of its amendments again. I’d forgotten some important clauses and amendment rights that were in there. Things that have been blatantly ignored by our government, both Republican and Democrat (although mostly Democrat) for my entire life. Why doesn’t anyone notice or say something?? Probably because the American public is too stupid to learn what their rights and responsibilities are unless given to them in sound bytes by a liberal media. Well, here is some very important stuff I found. I’m glad I decided to read it all again.
1) First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Well…If FOCA is passed the amendment rights in bold will be abridged as health care workers will no longer be able to practice their religion by not taking part in medical procedures (i.e. Abortion) they find morally abhorrent. Also, in many states Doctors can already face liability if they suggest abortion is wrong to a pregnant woman who is requesting one, and in the few states without conscience laws (38 states have them) can be required to provide the patient with a referral for an abortion.
Also if congress ever rules that gay marriage is legit, they will be prohibiting free exercise of religion. Congress also could not rule on any definition of marriage unless by amendment. Marriage controversies then, must be dealt with at the state level, according to state laws and constitutions (but not violating the US constitution…yes I’m talking to you California Judges). This would even be the case in controversies like the Texas polygamy cases last year, or in cases of minors marrying, should the marriage be religiously sanctioned. In other words, without an amendment to the constitution the US government is to back away from national laws dictating religious practices, such as marriage, exercise of conscience, etc. –leaving such rulings up to the states, a constitutional amendment, or to popular vote.
2) Second Amendment: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice that this does not say, “infringed by congress”, but rather “infringed” period. So the whole “no guns in New York” thing doesn’t work. Also note that this says “arms” not “guns” or “sporting equipment”. According to Webster’s Arms: 1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm. Thus, the exclusion of offensive weaponry like AK47’s M16’s and RPG’s from civilian ownership is unconstitutional, as is any statute, city ordinance, or state law prohibiting any type of weaponry (or the ability to load and fire that weapon for offensive or defensive purposes-i.e. Black Rhino bullets should be legal & there should be no law on how much ammo you can buy or your gun can hold.) Arms, distinctly means weapons. To “bear arms” means being able to quickly pick up and use a weapon, not just a sportsman’s rifle, but weapons built for the purpose of ending human life, not just shooting pheasants.
By the clause “well regulated militia” the government has the ability to regulate, license, train, and perhaps even keep tabs on gun owners, but there must be a legal channel available for an individual to obtain and possess military grade arms in such a manner that they be available to him quickly in the even he need to take defensive or offensive measures to ensure a “free state” (especially if that should someday mean defending his freedom and property FROM the state)
3) Fourth Amendment: 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 no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So please explain this one to me. How can police search people’s cars for open containers, or get people drug and alcohol checked at a hospital, or by breathalyzer (although in most places a citizen can decline this) or even check their pockets for marijuana without first obtaining a warrant?
4) Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Two gross violations of this one… First abortion. “No person be deprived of life or liberty”. Roe V.S. Wade ruled that a fetus isn’t a person and thus has no rights and thus a mother’s “liberty” holds primacy. However when we look back into the original constitution Section 2 Article 1, we see that taxes are apportioned to people. If we look back at inheritance law, unborn children could be the recipients of a will as far back as 1851. And since the US government taxes inheritance, the unborn are, by definition and constitution “people”. Unfortunately, this argument only partially holds up, as this taxation clause was removed due to the 3/5ths slave rule with the 14th amendment, which says that all people born in America are citizens and must not be deprived of life or liberty. However, in my opinion, the 14th amendment does not disqualify fetuses from being people any more than it disqualifies Chinese from being people, it only states that a fetus is not yet an American. As murder of a Chinese national within our borders would still be illegal, so should the killing of a fetus without due legal process. Notice Amendment 5 says “person” not “citizen”.
Violation 2 is the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Now I’m not even going to go into public domain, but rather discuss taxation in general. Taxes on income and property are, in fact, unconstitutional unless there is “compensation”. It might be argued that public works, should a private citizen benefit from them, be just compensation. This was likely the argument and impetus behind the 16th amendment. For example, income taxes going to a police force or fire brigade, since the citizen derives compensation in the form of services and protection. However, it becomes impossible to justify any and all entitlements that are given only to select citizens and not available to all citizens. For example, as a private citizen will likely never be compensated for the money going to welfare, money gained from income taxes should not be able to be used for this purpose. Like welfare, other programs that are not universally available and utilized by all citizens should be excluded from any income tax funding. Although amendment 16 contradicts this somewhat, (16 gave the government the right to collect taxes on income of any source) amendment 5 is still in the constitution and no part of 5 was ever repealed. Thus, if there is in lack of clarity in interpretation of 5 and 16, the error should be made on the side of citizen’s rights. Funding welfare, medicare, or the “Obamasplurge” relief plan with revenue from income tax is unconstitutional.