In Memory of the Bill of Rights

So far Martial law has not been declared, but there have been several "emergency hot spots" across the country, regarding a variety of issues, from wildfires to floods, and while martial law simmers potentially on the back burner, a new society is looming large in the forefront.  Life as we knew it in may is forever changed.  The refusal to allow the press to cover Operation Jade Helm 15 was an obvious blow to the First Amendment, but we the people were too busy calling each other conspiracy theorists or sheople to notice the freedom of the press to exercise rights on American soil had been suspended or curtailed.  While people complain regularly about mainstream media, the alternative media is perceived to be amateurish and fringy.  

It's taken me awhile to find the words, but basically, with the Bill of Rights being dismantled a piece at a time and the nation's attention drawn to the Second Amendment, the gender issues and new marital definition may serve to be the fatal blow to the First Amendment, using the Tenth Amendment.  The First Amendment has been in critical condition for some time now, as well as the Tenth as the federal government has become more empirilized.  I now see that our government has just about circumvented every freedom mentioned in the first ten amendments, citing the Constitution . . . or safety.

This situation in Kentucky brought to my attention, the "interpretation" of the first amendment, to completely override the tenth.  When we are griping about a particular politician not upholding the Constitution, we need to keep in mind, the Bill of Rights are not really protected by the Constitution.  The Constitution was written to protect the rights of a sovereign nation and establish a government apart from the rest of the sovereign nations and governments.  The Bill of Rights was specifically written to protect the people from an overreaching sovereign federal government.

1. First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.

Second 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.

Third No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law   

Fourth  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. 

Fifth  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 offence 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

Sixth  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Seventh In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth  Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth  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.

I read the Bill of Rights, again and again; and I can't help but wonder if they were compiled as a sort of "Ten Commandments" of we the people, to our government.  The fact that they have been undermined in apparent randomness has made the loss less obvious.  Figuring inflation alone, in our self serving society, the seventh amendment went directly to countless lawsuits and a rise in legal careers, with many of those lawsuits being quite frivolous.  This of course, began the immense backlog of the civil judicial system.  The prison industry has led to the sixth amendment becoming a mere technicality when the defendant has no defense.  A speedy trial is completely a relative term, with the courts across this land now even conducting trials on Sabbath, in some cases. 

The eighth amendment is open to debate regarding bail and excessive fines, but the last portion of the amendment seems to be used primarily in the final appeal in cases of capital punishment, which affects a very small portion of our society.  The first portion of the eighth amendment which would impact more of our society, seems to be arbitrarily applied with no actual standard at all.

The ninth amendment is stated to elude to the protection of privacy which doesn't appear in the Constitution and is not directly stated here in the Bill of Rights, so American's protection of privacy is really just an inference that is tossed around with no legal substance.  Thus, our current Big Brother state.  According to our current society, the ninth amendment is just a vague generalized comment with little meaning.

On to the meatier amendments.  The fifth amendment covers everything from no self-incrimination to eminent domain.  I'm not sure who determines which crimes are infamous and which crimes are not, but the number of felony offenses has skyrocketed with the war on drugs and the rise of the prison industry.  The fifth amendment is the inspiration for the reading of one's miranda rights when arrested, as well as testifying under oath.  Eminent domain has been around long before SCOTUS made it official.  As a Native American, it seems eminent domain is how this country was actually formed, but that's a topic for another day.  Most Native American tribes did not believe the land was to be owned, so removing us from the equation, eminent domain is really the "politically correct" term for "taking private property for public use."  Eminent domain has certainly been a part of this country since the Interstate Highway was built in the 50's . . . 

No knock warrants, another "weapon" in the war on drugs has of course completely eradicated the protection of the fourth amendment, and has even gotten folks killed.  Elderly Atlanta resident, 92 year old Kathryn Johnston's death was a direct result of the "legal" disregard for the fourth amendment.

A state of continual war nullifies the purpose of the third amendment, automatically.  This year, Operation Jade Helm 15 had given clear indication, what the military does in our own cities on our own soil, is none of our business, except that we should cooperate, and caused anyone with raised eyebrows to be labeled as paranoid or fear-mongering.  The nullification of this particular amendment could become quite troubling if "illegal immigrant amnesty for military service" becomes law.  No way to really know who will have the right to just move in!  We may see, shortly.

The second amendment gets all the attention, usually, and seems to always be in the "crosshairs" of the anti-gun folks.  For now the NRA is financially powerful and most citizens are intelligent enough to know, the criminals already don't worry about laws, so gun laws won't make any difference, either.  Disarming law abiding citizens is a clear attack on our freedom.  There's just not enough political spin to get around that fact.  One concern I have, is again the tenth amendment may be being used to erode the second amendment.  All the states that are offering permits for conceal and carry or even open carry may technically have already infringed upon the rights afforded in the second amendment, and relegated gun "control" to the individual states.  In all this confusion, I'm guessing state gun control laws will override the second amendment, but SCOTUS interpretation of marriage will override state laws . . . Well played, federal government!

And now, in memory of my favorite amendment.  Although according to the first amendment, Congress can make no law regarding religion, but . . . the SCOTUS can interpret any case they choose to "hear" and according to this last week's news, "it becomes the law of the land."  No need for Congress to make new laws, when everything can simply be reinterpreted.  We also have learned that "free exercise thereof" of religion has no place on the job or in the public square.  We'll see if other religions are held to the same standard Judaism and Christianity have been held.  You are still free to speak, but you are not free from being monitored and you are not free from surveillance.  Freedom of the press was openly rejected in the Operation Jade Helm 15 exercises, on American soil.  People can peaceably assemble to petition the government, which is to protest, as long as they stay in the "first amendment zone" a.k.a. "free speech cage." "Free speech cage" has to be the ultimate oxymoron!

As these Ten Amendments have been reduced to illusion, the Ten Commandments were etched in stone.

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of YHWH thy Elohim, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:  Torah of Holy Scripture

1. 
   
2. 
   

Societal Rules in the News

As Americans worry and fear Sharia law, a few things come to mind.  I'm certainly not for the implementation of Sharia law, but I think we may have a slightly skewed perspective on what we call American freedom and democracy.  While we fear and dread the possibility of Sharia law coming to this country, how much invasive control is already here?

Wearing a big cloth sack over my head, that hangs to my toes with eye holes to go in public is not my preference, but having my private property destroyed because the spy in the sky can't tell okra from pot is not my preference either.  The first, they call Sharia law, while the second is still called American freedom and democracy (with the war on drugs.)

Reading about a young woman who dies at the hands of her father or brothers sickens me.  The entire idea of honor killings is beyond what I can understand, but the concept of women being stoned for impurity dates back to Scripture.  Since there are no Torah based governments, there really should be no capital punishment, but that's a topic for another day.  The fact that family members can kill a family member for the sake of "honor" sickens me, but reading about moms killing their young children is becoming much more common here in the states.  Sharia law calls it honor killing, American law calls it mentally deranged, and yet many times, there are religious overtones to the American circumstances, as well.  While we are all shocked and abhorred that any parent would kill their child, I have to wonder if the honor killings are as rare in another culture as these bizarre cases in America are.  What if the honor killings in Islamic countries are as bizarre to them as American mothers killing their children are to us?

If Sharia law comes to the US, I won't be thrilled with the new regulation that I will be required to be accompanied by a male relative or husband when I leave the house.  On the other hand, strip searched on the road or taken to a health care facility for invasive procedures looking for what is not there . . . is not my preference either.  From what I've seen and read, some traffic stop procedures would not be allowed under Sharia Law.

Domestic abuse and wives as property is reported to be acceptable within the societal limits of Sharia Law.  As western culture is abhorred by the lack of rights for women in Islamic culture, we tend to overlook the fact that men and women have equally lost rights to government officials in their own homes, here in the US of A.
Home schooling parents pepper sprayed and tazed while children watch in horror, then were removed from the home.  A family in Arkansas was torn apart over a legal mineral supplement.  I'm not sure Sharia Law is as invasive in the home as Child Protective Services in American freedom and democracy.

While we westerners gasp in horror that news is filtered and internet service controlled in Muslim countries, we should keep in mind, we may have access to information overload, but our internet use is being monitored and tracked for the "safety of democracy."

. . . when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.  a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Where Do Our Constitutional Rights End?

As the conversation continues that the current administration is anti-Constitutional, we should take a look at a number of "items" that have been in place long before anyone outside of Chicago heard of Barack Obama.  I do not agree with his politics and I do find him to be very arrogantly disrespectful of our American freedoms, but there are so many other "Bills of Rights" that we have "gone along with" already in place.  Wikipedia, in my opinion, is not the final authority on these topics, I simply used the site as a common source to verify the existence of a number of declarations.  Technically, the Constitution doesn't protect the rights of citizens.  The Constitution protects the sovereignty of the United States of America.  The Bill of Rights protects the citizens, and we've allowed many other bills of rights to potentially usurp the authority of the Official Bill of Rights.

Thankfully, most of these declarations are not federal law and are presented to benefit those mentioned in the title, but there is a back door of control in some of these that actually rob an individual of their Constitutional Bill of Rights in lieu of these institutional documents.  For example, the "Patients Bill of Rights" has in reality overridden a patient's own decision regarding their health care and more than once has actually taken the rights of a patient "for their own good," or that of a child's regarding their parents rights.  Many facilities present their incoming patients with a "Bill of Rights" only to later usurp that individual's Constitutional Bill of Rights.  One of the best examples I can offer are the recent headlines involving parents of newborns who do not wish to vaccinate or at least not immediately.  More than one young mother has been sent off of a health care campus without her new baby, after child protection services have received reports from various health professionals.  I have for years, unashamedly referred to hospitals and healthcare facilities as "Sanctuaries of Sorcery."

As I read about the "Student Bill of Rights," it becomes painfully obvious that the decision to make this document powerful lies in the hands of those who draft it, but ultimately, government can enforce the document as the "will of the people" involved.  The legal enforceability of the Student Bill of Rights is quite murky, but in statements regarding parental questions and rights, institutions of education have more than once declared that a child does not have Constitutional rights in that facility.

I stumbled across the "Homeless Bill of Rights" which is genuine legislation in some states, with several more giving it consideration.  It seems in many of these cases, if our own government had not passed legislation to deregulate banking, many American citizens would not be homeless.  Being homeless should not require special regulation in America.  Being homeless should not be a reason to be abused by local authority.  There is no reason losing one's home should cause that same individual to lose the right to be treated as an American citizen with the Bill of Rights intact.

The "Consumer Bill of Rights" is law and has been for over 50 years.  The article in Wikipedia states the Consumer Bill of Rights has since been adopted by the UN in 1985 and expanded, with some rather ominous overtones of a controlling takeover of rights.  I included the following from the article.
In 1985, the concept of consumer rights was endorsed by the United Nations through the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection, which expands them to include eight basic rights.

The right to satisfaction of basic needs[edit]
The right to redress[edit]
The right to consumer education[edit]
The right to a healthy environment[edit]

This right demands that people have access to basic, essential goods and services: adequate food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, public utilities, water, and sanitation

The right to redress provides for consumers to receive a fair settlement of just claims, including compensation for misrepresentation, shoddy goods, or unsatisfactory services. For example, a consumer should be able to go to consumer court against mobile phone companies that put hidden charges on the bill that were not previously explained, or activate ringtones without the consumer's permission.

The right to consumer education states that consumers should be able to acquire knowledge and skills needed to make informed, confident choices about goods and services, while being aware of basic consumer rights and responsibilities and how to act on them.

This is the right to live and work in an environment that is non-threatening to the well-being of present and future generations.

We know that members of the military, while serving, do not have the same rights they are protecting.  Since there is presently no draft, a person has a choice as to whether or not they participate, and since I haven't, I can't really offer a perspective.   

We know when law enforcement reads the Miranda Warning, one's "rights" have become absolutely minimal, as to remaining silent and calling an attorney.   This brings to mind the rights of travelers now with the TSA.  We all have the right to be offended at "virtual strip searches," groping, and the assumption that we guilty until proven innocent.

Prisoners, of course, lose rights when found guilty of a crime, but the fact that America has the largest prison population in the world does have the attention of the UN, which has it's own "Prisoner Bill of Rights."  There is a degree of overlap between the prison system and the mental health system, in that often the prisoner/patient does have issues that must be addressed by both systems.  Those forced into mental health care, frequently have fewer rights than those in the prison system and forced mental health care does not have a date of completion as does the legal sentencing structure of the prison system. 

Throughout this millennium, we have observed a number of ways both administrations of the 21st Century have found around the 2nd Amendment.  There is no need to confiscate guns, when bullets and ammo can simply be made unavailable.  I remember back in 2005, looking at a gun for home meat processing.  The inventory of guns was vast, the availability of bullets was interestingly in short supply for the more popular models of guns . . . Now, the current administration simply chooses to enforce limits on certain ammunition and some ammunition may just become unavailable for purchase.   

Net Neutrality, the latest form of faux protection we've been handed will certainly not ensure this internet journalist to have the same opportunities as Rupert Murdoch.  Historically speaking, there is little evidence that government legislation levels the playing field, except to lower the level of the "playing field" for the majority.  I'm already discerning the loss of free speech over net neutrality, and probably much more than that before it's all said and done.

I'm seeing a distinct correlation to what is happening with all these so called "Bills of Rights" and the following Torah passage.

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of YHWH thy G-d, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:  Torah of Holy Scripture