Michael Rivero
As the United States
government continues its war against the nation created in 1779, it has become
all too obvious that many Americans, although they will talk about the Bill of
Rights, remain unclear as to what it says and what it means. Partly that is due
to endless government and corporate media spin, and partly because the language
spoken in this nation has changed so much from the time of the writing of the
Constitution to the present day, that many people are confused as to what was
actually intended. On the occasion of the New York Times publishing an op-ed
calling for the abandonment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I offer
some clarification.
Amendment
I
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.
The Founding fathers saw
how religion, blended with civil power, led to abuses of the people. The
disagreement between the Catholics and Protestants, expressed through the armies
of rival factions, had almost destroyed the British Empire. The Founding Fathers
understood that their very new and still fragile nation would not survive any
internal religious wars. Many colonists had come to the New World to escape
religious intolerance, and the Founding Fathers understood that the only way to
guarantee religious freedom for all was to deny civil power to all religions.
That is the meaning of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion" although it is often misquoted by church leaders as "Congress shall
make no law regarding an establishment of religion" as justification for
favorable tax practices. What this provision of the First Amendment meant was
that no one religion would receive preferential treatment over any other. There
would be no official state religion of the new nation.
"All national
institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and
monopolize power and profit." —Thomas Paine
"I do not find in
orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." —Thomas
Jefferson
"The government of the
United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." —John
Adams
"Religious institutions
that use government power in support of themselves and
force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our
civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make
the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within
religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,'
therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." –Thomas
Jefferson
"The purpose of
separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the
ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
—James Madison
The provision of the First Amendment regarding
free speech and a free press was intended not to protect lies, as many
politicians and media like to proclaim. Lies do not
need protection, nor should lies be protected. The First Amendment protection
for freedom of speech and the press was to protect the truth from those in power
for whom the truth was a threat, to protect the truth from those who would rule
by lies and deceptions.
The provision of the
First Amendment regarding the right to peacefully assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances was intended to guarantee that when We
The People spoke, the government would be forced to
listen. And while the government might not choose to respond to the grievances,
the First Amendment denies them the ability to pretend the grievances do not
exist. This provision was based on the British government's practice of banning
public protests, in order to pretend that their subjects were happy and content,
because nobody spoke out.
Amendment
II
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.
In the days when this
amendment was written, the militia meant every adult able to bear arms. The
militia was not the regular army. The term "regulated" was not a legal term at
that time, but a mechanical one. A regulator was any mechanical device used to
make something work better. A spin-ball governor was used to "regulate" the
speed of a steam engine, as one example. A "Well Regulated" militia meant a
militia with all the proper equipment needed to do their job better. That meant
good weapons with good sights. After all, what use is a militia if they cannot
hit what they are aiming at? And note that the word used is "arms". Not just
"firearms", but "arms", meaning every possible weapon that might be used in a
military confrontation between the government and the people.
The Second Amendment is
not about target shooting or hunting. At the time, hunting was indispensable for
survival in the new nation, especially when food crops were unavailable. To
deprive the people of their hunting weapons was to condemn them to death by
starvation in the winter months. Military commanders of the time viewed hunting
weapons as off limits. When Lieutenant Colonel George Monro surrendered Fort William Henry to Major General
Louis-Joseph de Montcalm during the French and Indian Wars, the civilian militia serving the British were allowed to take their
weapons with them when they left. When the British marched on Concord,
triggering the Battles of Lexington and Concord and the start of the American
Revolution, it was to seize military arms, not hunting
weapons.
By the very inclusion of
the terms "militia", "security", and "free state" it is clear that the Second
Amendment is referring to military arms. The Founding Fathers understood that it
was only because the people had been in possession of military arms that they
were able to resist the economic enslavement of King George's Currency Act,
created under pressure from the then-private central Bank of England. Absent
those arms in the hands of the people, the banker-imposed poverty would have
continued indefinitely.
"The refusal of King
George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed
the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the
prime cause of the revolution." —Benjamin Franklin, Founding
Father
The Founding Fathers,
while acknowledging the need for some form of government, knew all too well from
thousands of years of human history that government is not automatically the
friend of the governed, and had to be kept under tight
control.
"Government is not
reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a
troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left
to irresponsible action." —George Washington, in a speech of January 7,
1790
Following the
Revolution, the Founding Fathers created a nation with power and authority
reserved to the people. In order to avoid despotic rule, the government was
broken into three separate parts, so that the natural tendency for government to
seek more power would be turned against itself and not the people. Strict limits
were imposed on the government itself, to keep the government the servant of the
people.
"The legitimate object
of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have
done, but cannot do it all on their separate and individual capacities."
—Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
The Founding Fathers
included the Second Amendment because they understood that any system of
government is only as good as the people who are in that government. They
understood that political power attracts the very sort of people who should
never be allowed to have it. And they understood that no matter how limited
government was at its creation, over time all governments tend towards
oligarchy, cease to be the servant of the people, and seek to become the
masters.
"While the people have
property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of
noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of
tyranny." —Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789
"The strongest reason
for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort,
to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson Papers
p. 334, 1950)
In short, the Second
Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is and was ever intended
to be about protecting We The People from the
government of the United States.
Amendment
III
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.
As public sentiment
against the massive poverty created by the imposition of King George III's Currency Act (which ordered the colonies to transact
all commerce using only bank notes borrowed at interest from the Bank of
England, the British began ordering colonial leaders to provide rooms for
British soldiers in their homes. This was not done because of a lack of
accommodations. There was ample open land for forts and military camps. The
quartering of British soldiers in the private homes was so that everything
spoken of inside the home was known to the British occupying forces. By keeping
a watchful eye on the colonial leaders, the British military commanders hoped to
deter the growing revolutionary fever.
In looking at that
intent behind the quartering of troops, it is clear that we have arrived at much
the same situation today with e-mail scanning, warrantless phone intercepts, and
other forms of remote surveillance. Yet the object is exactly the same; to make
known to the government what is being talked of in private homes and
communications, and to instill a fear in the people to speak out against
abuse.
Amendment
IV
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.
This amendment was
created by the Founding Fathers as a response to the British practice of random
searches of homes, businesses, and persons, again as an attempt to terrorize the
colonists into silence and inaction as the Currency Act looted the profit of
their labors for the Bank of England. The intention of the Fourth Amendment was
to prevent the government from entering your home, place of business, or
searching your person simply because they wanted to, or as part of a general
campaign of intimidation. Evidence of actual wrong-doing, and not just
disagreement with the government, had to be presented by the police to the
courts, for a warrant for such invasion to be granted. Although neither the telegraph or telephone existed at the time the
Fourth Amendment was ratified, under the 9th Amendment, 4th Amendment
protections extend to new technologies. In the present day that includes
computers and cell phones, although the government, attempting to justify the
NSA spying on all Americans takes the position they do
not.
Amendment
V
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.
The Fifth Amendment
bundled together several restrictions, again arising out of the abuses of the
British occupying forces.
The Grand Jury was
created so that ambitious politicians could not hurl baseless charges at their
opponents as political weapons. The exemption for times of war was a pragmatic
one, but in the hindsight of abuses such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo,
imprudent.
The provision against
being charged and tried for the same offence twice was, like the Grand Jury, a
device to keep prosecutors from simply charging the accused repeatedly until
they ran out of money and could no longer defend themselves in court; a popular
tool of repression under British rule of the time.
The provision forbidding
the accused from being forced to be a witness against himself is a carry forward
from the Magna Carta. One may wonder why the Founding
Fathers felt they needed to reiterate such a basic understanding of civilized
law, but the Founding Fathers were well aware that neither the British nobles
nor King John had abided by the Magna Carta after it
was signed. The tortures of the inquisition had yielded a great many false but
convenient confessions, and the tortures used to extract confessions from the
accused Salem witches was for them a fresh memory (and another reason for the
First Amendment prohibition against an official state
religion).
The provision barring
the government from simply taking the property of the people without
compensation was yet another response to British practice leading up to the
start of the Revolution. The Due Process clause was intended to limit the
government's ability to confiscate the wealth of the people by requiring that
all three branches of the government first agree that such action was necessary,
legal, and justified.
Amendment
VI
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.
The Sixth Amendment was
intended to prevent the government from the practice of the "Star Chamber"; of
going through the illusion of a proceeding to justify an already decided
outcome. This Amendment was intended to bias the legal system fully in favor of
the private citizen against ambitious prosecutors and politicians who would
arrange false accusations and show trials to mask what amounted to political
(and sometimes real) assassination. It was common practice in Europe to mask a
real agenda behind a manufactured accusation, as Philip IV had used accusations
of heresy to murder the Templars with the real agenda of erasing his debts to
them.
The right to a trial by
jury was intended to prevent conviction by political pressure; to remove from
the courts the ability to wrongfully convict an innocent party because of
political expediency. This too had been a common tactic for the British
occupying forces to use against the colonial leaders, to imprison and stigmatize
those who spoke out against the abuse of power.
Amendment
VII
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.
The Seventh Amendment
was intended to remove from the government the arbitrary ability to inflict
civil damages based on political expediency. Under British rule, when attempts
to imprison colonial leaders failed, it was another common tactic to bring a
civil suit against the person, relying on the British judges to impose fines and
settlements designed to ruin the victim and end their ability to speak out. By
empowering a jury of peers to make such decisions, the civil court system was
again biased in favor of ordinary Americans.
Amendment
VIII
Excessive bail shall not
be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.
The Eighth Amendment was
added in case the two previous Amendments failed to protect Americans from
politically manipulated courts. It guarantees that if found guilty of a crime,
that the punishment musty be proportional to the severity of the crime, and no
more. The provision regarding cruel and unusual punishments was in response to
the British Practice of intentionally horrific punishments, such as hanging,
drawing, and quartering, as a means to terrorize the public into
obedience.
Amendment
IX
The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
This is one of the most
important Amendments, yet one of the most overlooked. This Amendment makes it
clear that the people have additional rights over and above those enumerated
here, and that the non-inclusion in the Constitution cannot be used as an
argument denying those rights. This Amendment was added by the Founding Fathers
who were well aware that the future would bring changes to the world which they
could neither predict nor prepare for. Among their own members was Ben Franklin,
whose own discoveries and inventions made it clear the world was changing in
unpredictable ways. The Ninth Amendment makes it clear
that the people would need and automatically enjoy additional rights that arose
as the nation grew, and that the government was not allowed to deny the people
basic rights simply because new methods of communication and industry were
developed. This, it can be argued that the current government's insistence that
electronic mail not enjoy the same Constitutional protections as paper mail is a
clear violation of the 9th Amendment.
Amendment
X
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.
The Tenth Amendment is
very explicit in constraining the government to their authorities as set forth
in the Constitution. Unlike the Ninth Amendment, which grants presumption of
additional rights to the people, the Tenth Amendment strictly limits the
authority of the US Government to those powers and authorities enumerated in the
Constitution. Simply put, if an authority is not in the Constitution, the
government may not presume or arrogate that additional authority to itself. Again, the intention of the Founding Fathers was to
design a system of governance that would hold in check the natural tendencies of
those in government to expand their authority and control at the expense of the
people.
The Constitution is the
original contract with America. It's purpose is not only to tell the government what
it may do but to make clear what it may not do. The government created by the
Founding Fathers is legal and legitimate only when it operates inside those
limits imposed by We The People in that document. The
Founding Fathers understood that government will not, of its own accord,
constrain itself to the rules, and left it up to We The People to enforce that
contract, by force if need be, granting us the right to keep and bear military
arms equal to those of the standing army should it ever become necessary to do
so.
