Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Constitution 101: Bill of Rights

There are some pretty basic misconceptions regarding our Founding Documents out there, even among many of our smarter Patriots.  A significant misunderstanding exists in the minds of many people regarding the Bill of Rights.  How many times have you heard some Leftist suggest that we re-write or repeal the Second Amendment, for instance?  And how many people on the political Right entertain the argument by listing all the reasons 2A should not be altered?  How many people have you witnessed try to parse words or twist the definitions of words or twist the intent of 2A, both in attempts to weaken it and defend it.  How many Courts have committed crimes against Humanity as they infringe 2A - and all the other Amendments in the BoR?

We all understand the difference between the words "May" and "Can".  When we use the word "May", it conveys permission.  "May Not" conveys permission denied.  The word "Can", however, is the physical ability to do a thing, regardless of the status of permission.  One may not infringe 2A, but people can and do infringe it all the time - because they have the power and willingness to imprison or kill you.

Now here is a simple reality that will strike many Patriots as counter-intuitive: The ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights may not be altered, restricted or deleted - period.  Full Stop.

Article V many of you will say, especially those who went to law school.  The BoR was brought into existence through the Article V process, so using the same Article V process the BoR can be modified, restricted or deleted.


You will remember that many, many people were lined up to kill the USC unless a Bill of Rights was added, articulating a few basics that the USC did not enumerate.  Some people argued that the USC covered all the things listed in the BoR, there was no need to articulate them.  Others said, simply, no BoR, no ratification.

Now, you will remember our first Founding Document says: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Unalienable Rights, endowed to us by our Creator - Rights that no Man or body of Men have the moral authority to infringe.  This was the foundation for our fight with the King.  That was the foundation for starting our own country.  That was the mandate for the Constitution.  The Constitution was an attempt to codify and protect our unalienable Rights with a form of limited, minimalist government that would define what government may or may not do. (Only We the People can stop bad actors who violate the rules.)

Why may the Bill of Rights not be amended, infringed or deleted?  Because the first ten amendments articulate Natural Rights, endowed to us by our Creator - above the reach of any Man or group of Men.  Here, take a moment and go read the BoR and you'll see that each enumerates a Right of Natural Law that loops back to the DoI's fundamental assertion - that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are endowed to us by our Creator.  Without the additional rights enumerated in the BoR, how can one possibly pursue and secure Life, Liberty and Happiness in a world where Bad People exist?  

Indeed, the preamble to the BoR (Yes, there is a preamble) explicitly states the amendments are declaratory and restrictive.  That means they are objective statements, not subjective, thus not open to debate.  Self-evident, if you will.  And of course restrictive means .Gov may not touch them.  (The can, and do, but they are wrong in doing so.)  And, of course, the Ninth Amendment reflects that just because not every Natural Right was articulated, they were not surrendered.

Peamble: 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 restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Every "Law" that infringes, in any manner, a Natural Right is null and void, as Jefferson told us.

All of the infringements we tolerate to our Natural Rights, endowed by our Creator, need not be endured.  We are under no moral obligation to tolerate any Man who seeks to infringe the gifts of our Creator.

The sooner we take those gifts seriously, the sooner we consider how insulting it may be to our Creator that we permit His gifts to be destroyed, the sooner we begin defending our Natural Rights with the ferocity and righteous anger that is warranted - the sooner we can realize Mister Jefferson's Rightful Liberty.

Examine what you tolerate.

Consider when and how you will stop tolerating infringements to the gifts of your Creator.



  1. It's amazing when a statement is so powerful and truthful it makes you want to go out and kill something evil. It doesn't hurt that I have some Slayer blastin' in the background also. :) Another masterpiece K.

  2. Just some straight up greatness and truth in these words. If this doesn't motivate your soul to stand up and fight for liberty then you might wana reexamine your ideology.


  3. When once you have felt the bitter sting of their corrupt filth ground into a wound of your own, you will truly know what it is that you fight against. When the courts practice politics instead of upholding law, and cops and DAs deride and abuse you for an act of self-defense which you had no choice but to take, then you will know in your bones how dead the Rule of Law is... and you will be prepared to act accordingly, as I am.

  4. All of the infringements we tolerate to our Natural Rights, endowed by our Creator, need not be endured. We are under no moral obligation to tolerate any Man who seeks to infringe the gifts of our Creator

    I would argue that there is no moral obligation to tolerate any rules that don't relate to you harming another person not just the BoR. Just because our ancestors agreed to follow the laws of a govt I do not see how it should be binding on us.

    I was an avid supporter of the constitution and pretty much would still agree to live under today as it was originally written but as I have gotten older I question why anyone should be subject to an agreement they did not make. If my grandparents or parents signed a contract that can not be enforced upon me. I do not see how govt is different.

    I find myself supporting the constitution but questioning the legitimacy of any agreement a person did not personally con sent to.

    That leaves me stuck somewhere between supporting the constitution and supporting Others who want to live without government.

    I will always defend it because I did agree to when I swore an oath to defend it but I do question the legitimacy of forcing other that did not agree to it to be subject to it.

  5. Nice to hear someone else write what I have always believed and taken seriously. Good of you to put your thoughts into words that everyone with a brain can understand.

  6. I never really thought of it that way before. I was always one of those people trying to parse the language of each amendment when trying to explain to others why they have no right to modify or repeal it. This makes it much clearer. I will keep this argument in my little bag o tricks for "debates" with people that don't think like me. I'll probably highlight the preamble to the BoR in my Constitutions.


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.