British Tyranny, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 6:)

The ninth and 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States have very deep roots. Roots that go back to the principal of what the structure of power is. The belief of the founders was a structure power went from the creator, to the people, to government in that order. A lot of world history and specifically Western history influence founding fathers, from the Greek and Roman empires Socrates and Aristotle, to John Locke and Charles Montesquieu. Though British tyranny did have influence in the development of the ninth and 10th amendments you have to go back to philosophy to understand the meaning behind the motivation of the ninth and 10th amendments. It can be summed up with natural rights and the proper order power. These basic values are the principal motivators behind the ninth and 10th amendments.

Here we will look at specifically natural rights and the order of power, without going through the entire genesis of human history, this will start with John Locke and his Second Treatises of government, and also Spirit of Laws by Montesquieu. Both authors and philosophers influence can be seen on founding fathers pre-revolutionary colonial history and writings, revolutionary history writings, early state governments, early charters, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States. These philosophers had a profound impact on the founding fathers just in themselves, and British tyranny and oppression only made these beliefs stronger.

British Tyranny, the Seventh and Eighth Amendments, The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 5:)

Both the seventh and eighth amendments to the United States Constitution deal of trials, one criminal and one civil. Just like the previous amendments to the Constitution the seventh and eighth amendment could also find their legacy in the British monarchy and how it dealt with the American colonies. Just as with each of the previous amendments the Genesis can directly be traced to tyranny, and are listed as grievances in the Declaration of Independence against King George.

The Seventh Amendment:

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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

As mentioned in Part 4 in regards sixth amendment, the right to trial the jury has a long history. But the seventh amendment deals lawsuits where the value of the dispute is greater than $20, not criminal trials. The Constitution ensures the right to trial by jury in criminal cases in Article  III Section 2 and is reinforced sixth amendment to Civil cases. But no guarantee had been given that trial by jury would also be guaranteed in civil cases.

The seventh amendment carries two parts, one in regards to trials by jury in civil suits, and the second the decisions of the jury shall not be dismissed other than to the rules of common law.

Corporations are not people, but that is irrelevant: (quick thoughts)

As we all know there is a new set of protests going on throughout the country the Occupy Wall Street movement. Now I will not get into the politics of these protests, but there is one sign in particular that caught my attention "corporations are not people". The reason this one caught my interest is the implications that it appears to be presenting, that corporations do not deserve the same protections as an individual. While they are not an individual they do have protections.

In regards to Constitutional rights  whether  we are talking about individual or corporation is irrelevant. The reason for this is the Constitution makes no distinction between an individual or a corporatio in the protection of rights. The Constitution, mainly the Bill of Rights, only list prohibited actions by government, not who or what is protected it lists  and this is what is of  importance. For example the First Amendment states the following "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 First Amendment makes no distinction or even specifically says who speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble or grievances are protected, it only states Laws cannot be made to limit it. tThe one thing that needs to be kept in mind is the Bill of Rights is not listing what people's rights are, it is listing additional  prohibitions to government specifically Congress. The Bill of Rights is not a list of what people's rights are, it is a list of very specific protections, it is a list of further limitations on government.

Is Speech always Free? (Quick Thoughts)

As an unapologetic proponent of Natural Rights which includes the inherent right to Freedom of Speech, it may be a surprise to learn that this is not a 100% Freedom in all situations, it does in fact have limits. But where and when those limits occur must and can only be finite and very limited themselves, and are only on location and not context.

Recently in California 10 students were found guilty of "disruptive speech" (from Foxnews.com), when they attempted to speak over the Israeli Ambassador to the United States while speaking at California University. The charge and court decision here are correct in this case. The main reason why these students did not have protected speech is the forum. Even though the Ambassadors speech was open to the public, the speech itself was not in the public domain, rather a controlled area or setting. This distinction is where the line of Freedom of speech ends, the Public Domain and NOT the Public Domain.

The Public forum is where Freedom of Speech is and ought to be absolute, the town square, parades, assemblies outside or around government facilities, the press or other writings, this is the public forum. What is not the public forum is privately controlled or reserved for another purpose, such as your house, your yard, a sports stadium, or another facility that distinctly separates it from the open public, such as a lecture room at a college. It does not matter who owns the property, it CAN be government owned but still not be in the public domain, meaning freedom of speech can be limited.

Perception should not mean a rush to judgment (Quick Thoughts)

For anybody who knows me, they would certainly know I am a huge Hockey Fan, and an avid follower of my team, the Chicago Blackhawks. In fact, I probably spend too much time following the NHL and the Blackhawks, I can routinely be found chatting about the Blackhawks or watching their games, even during the hot month of July.

But it was an incident away from the Hawks, but on the ice that catches my attention today, or really the aftermath of the event more so. On Thursday September 22, 2011 a preseason exhibition game took place between the Detroit Red Wings and Philadelphia Flyers in London, Ontario, a neutral site not uncommon in preseason action. The game was tied at 3-3 after the end of regulation and through a 5 minute overtime period, resulting in the game finishing with a shootout. The shootout consists of one skater trying to score a goal against the goalie, with no other defending players on the ice, it is a penalty shot, one shooter and one goalie. The team that scores the best out of three attempts wins the game, or sudden death if extra rounds are needed.

More than just a Declaration of Independence

July 4 is a day of celebration in the United States, it is the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, even though the actual vote for Independence took place two days before (July 2, 1776: The United States decides to Declare Independence). It is noted as the day the United States declared it will decide its own course, make its own rules, govern itself and would no longer hold or honor any allegiances to Britain or its crown. This was done with a magnificent piece of work written primarily by Thomas Jefferson with the assistance of  Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman (June 11, 1776 the Committee of Five), the Declaration of Independence.

Besides declaring, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES” dissolving the bonds between the United States and Great Britain, the Declaration states so much more, on the nature or power, the role of government and rights of the people. These declared principles in regards to each, will have a direct influence on the structure and power in the Articles of Confederation and Constitution (Declaration of Independence influence on the Constitution).

July 2, 1776: The United States decides to Declare Independence

July 4th is the day Americans celebrate the Declaration of Independence, but it was two days earlier on July 2, 1776 that the Second Continental Congress actually voted to declare Independence.

Independence had been debated in June 1776, and June 11th it was decided to postpone a vote until July 2, 1776 in order for states to ensure they favored such a vote. Also on June 11, 1776 the Committee of Five was formed, consisting of Thomas Jefferson,  John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston, to draft up a Declaration of Independence.

On July 2, 1776 debate proceeded and a vote for independence took place. The Continental Journal recorded the following in that day's session of the Continental Congress¹ (emphasis added).

The Congress resumed the consideration of the resolution agreed to by and reported from the committee of the whole; and the same being read, was agreed to as follows:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and, of right, ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connexion between them, and the state of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Agreeable to the order of the day, the Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole; ∥and, after some time,∥ the president resumed the chair. Mr. [Benjamin] Harrison reported, that the committee have had under consideration the declaration to them referred; but, not having had time to go through ∥the same,∥ desired leave to sit again:

The Committee of Five had yet to finish a final draft, and requested leave to sit and finish their work, but the decision was made, Independence from Great Britain had been decided. No fanfare or celebration followed, only the orderly business of the rest of the day. However, it was not lost on these men what they had done, they became traitors to the crown punishable by death, but they knew they sewed the seeds for an entirely new way of government, self government man would not rule man, man would rule himself.

On July 3, 1776 John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail a letter and wrote the following;

Yesterday the greatest question was decided, which ever was debated in America, and a greater, perhaps, never was or will be decided among Men. A resolution was passed without one dissenting colony "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states, and as such they have, and of right ought to have, full power to make war, conclude peace, establish commerce, and to do all the other acts and things which other states may rightfully do." You will see in a few days a declaration setting forth the causes which have impelled us to this mighty revolution and the reasons which will justify it in the sight of God and man. (morning letter)²

The second day of July, 1776, will be memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations, as the great Anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp, shews, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of the continent to the other, from this time forward forever. (evening letter)²

John Adams was right, the day of Independence would in fact be a day of celebration with, "with pomp, shews, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of the continent to the other". John Adams only had the actual date wrong, the day the final draft of the Declaration of Independence was approved resulting in that day being penned on the document.

But make no mistake, it was this day July 2, 1776 the Founding Fathers in the Continental Congress decided to Declare Independence, the die was set. The United States was born, as it decided to cut off it bonds with Great Britain and set their own path and future for themselves.

 

 

 

 

1: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc00523))

2: http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2145/default.asp

British Tyranny, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 4:)

Unlike the first four amendments, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment is constructed of numerous parts. The First Amendment also contained several aspects, but is centered on protecting freedom of expression, and government interference in the right of conscience. Both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are designed to protect the rights of a person accused of committing a crime, however the Fifth Amendment includes a clause concerning eminent domain.

Many of the aspects of both Fifth and Sixth Amendments have direct ties to tyrannical practices of the British during Colonial rule, just as the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The lack of due process in Colonial times has a long history and affects more than just the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The lack of due process also is apparent in the Fourth Amendment as a result of the Writ of Assistance to broad unspecific search warrants (The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 3: British Tyranny, the Fourth Amendment)).

What are the Federalist Papers?

I'm sure most, if not all of you have heard of the Federalist Papers, and most probably know they deal with and talk about the Constitution. But beyond that I find fewer people know what the Federalist Papers are.

After the Convention of 1787, also known as the Constitution Convention, the future of the proposed Constitution was anything far from certain. In fact, the future of the drafted Constitution was very much in doubt, and had fierce opposition from the outset, including from delegates who participated in the Convention. Some states were fairly quick to ratify the Constitution in their respective State Conventions, but several, including New York were not so fast to act.

The Constitution required nine States to ratify it, to cause it to go into effect for those states that ratified, meaning it could take just five State to reject it and prevent it implementation. The times were desperate for the young nation, the Articles of Confederation were failing (Why the Articles of Confederation failed) and without the problems under the Articles of Confederation fixed, the economy, dignity and governments of the United States would almost certainly fall. The proposed Constitution was written to address these issues and complete the American Revolution.

Original Argument (Quick Thoughts)

I really do not like endorsing or encouraging people to purchase things, I would prefer them to choose on their own, and most references I use are free on the public domain. But this one I will, Glenn Becks "Original Argument".

This book takes the Federalists or more commonly called "The Federalist Papers" and adapts them from the 18th Century to the 21st Century. The Federalists were written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton from 1787-1788 to the people of New York in support of the proposed Constitution. This was the first and original complete argument for the Constitution from beginning to end.

Two of the three authors, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were delegates and signers at the Constitution Convention of 1787. John Jay were New Yorkers while Madison was from Virginia and was asked by Hamilton to assist in this project. They used the pseudonym "Publius" in their writings to the people of New York, with 85 essays being printed over the course.

The Federalists explained the Constitution, its objectives, what the meaning of nearly every part was meant to be, what powers belonged to what body, the Federal or State Governments or the People. They countered arguments against the Constitution, and in the end helped persuade the New York Convention to ratify the Constitution on July 26, 1788.

The Federalists are one of the most important pieces in understanding the Original Intention AND Meaning of the Constitution during the era of ratification and the granting of power to form this Federal Government. Various papers and resources exist from the era which also contribute, but perhaps none are more widely known than those of the Federalists. They are cited in Supreme Court opinions, are cited by scholars, historians and Constitutionalists. Even though written over 220 years ago, their value has not diminished, because very documents have such a direct and complete connection to the Constitution and what it meant to the people, then the writings of the Federalists.

But the contemporary problem with the Federalist Papers is to fully understand them, it requires a lot of cross referencing or prior knowledge to understand some of their analogies or how they relate them to certain situations. With out understanding all these parts, some of the argument can easily be lost and even confusing.

This book takes the Original Argument, and adapts it using today's references and language so the cross referencing and prior knowledge is not as required, but the goal is the same. It makes the argument for supporting the Constitution as it was understood in the 1780's. This is a good read, but do not substitute it for not reading the actual Federalists, use it as a companion, and make up your own mind if the Original Argument was correct.

Amazon link to the Book

http://www.amazon.com/Original-Argument-Federalists-Constitution-Adapted/dp/1451650612

June 11, 1776 the Committee of Five

June 11, 1776 is a significant date in the path toward the Declaration of Independence. On this date a Committee of Five was formed to prepare a draft declaration for the Continental Congress to vote on.

Earlier on May 15 Virginia voted to declare itself Independent of Great Britain. This ultimately set the stage for a similar vote in the Second Continental Congress which was seated in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On June 7, 1776 Richard Henry Lee of Virginia submitted the following resolution to the Congress.

"Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation."

American Protections of the accused (Quick Thoughts)

A series being run by the National Geographic Channel is called "Locked up abroad". Perhaps you have seen an episode or two, and if you have not I would encourage you too. It is not necessarily the often harsh conditions seen in foreign penal systems, even by other modern western countries, but it more the stark differences between the protections we afford to the accused compared to these stories.

Whether the story is taking place in Peru, Japan, Spain or some other nation, I often find myself while watching these hour long episodes focusing on what we take for granted here in the United States, and experiences of others who are not protected like we are here. Many times the individuals the subject of the show are actually guilty of some crime, but some happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is often times too easy to condemn people we see on TV accused of heinous crimes, with what we are shown by the media. But even in these instances these people the public condemns have the same protections as any other person in our criminal system, regardless if they are guilty with massive evidence against them or the wrongfully accused.

British Tyranny, the Fourth Amendment The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 3:)

Much like the first three Amendments, the Fourth Amendment can be directly related to the conduct of the British during Colonial Rule. Through much of the Colonial time warrants from a judge were required to search a person or their property, similar to today. But this was not always the case, at times a broad warrant would be issued not specifying a person, place or even subject matter for the reason of a search or seizure. The Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent this.

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.

British Tyranny, the Second and Third Amendments, The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 2:)

The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 1: British Tyranny, the First Amendment)

During Colonial rule, the British Crown and Colonial Governors were not shy about using the British Army or Navy against the Americans. The British Army was used to intimidate, seize property, enter homes or be quartered among the populace to present a posing threat. It was not only the Army that was used against the Colonists, but other Government forces or powers that were used against the Colonists, but Police, Tax Collectors, Justice of the Peace and on. The British Army or the other British Government Forces use against the populace is not short or limited even if not by direct force, just intimidation, and eventually led to the fighting to begin in 1775. This use of the Armed Forces directly led to two Amendments to the Constitution, the Second and Third.

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.

No one instance can be pin pointed as the need or desire for the Second Amendment, rather it is the entire scope of the American Revolution itself. The abuse of power by government against the people, the use of the military against the people, and the desire and unalienable right of the people to control their own destiny are at the root of the Second Amendment. This view is expressed in the Declaration of Independence;

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Memorial Day 2011 Letter

The exact origins of Memorial Day are lost to history, with numerous stories and claims to its beginning. But the known facts surrounding Memorial Day have its origin in the Civil War, and was first officially declared on May 5, 1868 by General John Logan. The first State to officially recognize Memorial Day was New York in 1873, and over time various types of Memorial Days were established by different States. Northern States typically had a Memorial Day in May, while Southern States had Confederate War Dead Day. In 1971 Memorial Day finally became a National Holiday as the last Monday in May.

Originally the purpose of Memorial Day was to honor the War Dead of the American Civil War, but just like how Armistice Day for World War I became Veterans Day for all Veterans, Memorial Day became a Day for remembering all who have fallen, not just the Civil War. Most Holidays are for celebration of our past, Memorial Day is honoring and mourning those who gave all for our future, in the defense of Freedom and Liberty.

The Price of Freedom and Liberty is high, in times of peace we measure the costs in Dollars, which annually is in the Hundreds of Billions. But it is the true price of Freedom we remember on Memorial Day, a price in blood which is beyond what can ever have a Dollar sign fixed to it. In order to protect freedom and liberty, the cost is the most important treasure we have, which is life. It costs us Sons and Daughters, Brothers and Sisters, Mothers and Fathers, and Husbands and Wives. The sacrifice of so many is what keeps us free today.

British Tyranny, the First Amendment, The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 1:)

The Bill of Rights when submitted to the States in 1789 contained 12 approved Articles by Congress, 10 of which would be ratified by the required States on December 17, 1791, and an additional one would eventually be ratified in 1992 and is now the 27^th Amendment. But it is the first 10 Amendments that will be explored here.

Why where these specifics things chosen to be protected? What caused them to be so important? Who and what where the driving factors in having a Bill of Rights at all? These things and more will be explored through the course of this discussion.

The first thing to look at is the root motivation of the clauses. What happened in the past that caused it to be so important to specifically protect these rights? What lessons in history were learned leading to the inclusion of these Rights. To answer these questions we need to go back to even before the American Revolution even started, to when the British Ruled the continent.

Each amendment will be broken up into individual components for analysis.

THE 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.

Signing with Autopen: Quick Thoughts

Today the President signed an extension on the Patriot Act using a device called autopen (the merits of the Patriot act are not of concern here, only the circumstances of its signing). The reason for this is, the President was in Europe at the time the bill was approved by Congress and ready for a the Presidents signature. According to Article I Section 7 regarding the passage of bills into Law it states:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

Article I Section 7 also states:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Who are the Founding Fathers? George Mason IV

Life: December 11, 1725-October 7, 1792

Wife: Wife: Ann Eilbeck (Wed April 4, 1750, Died March 9, 1773)

            Wife: Sarah Brent (Wed April 11, 1780, Died 1805)

Children:

Son: George Mason V (April 30, 1753)
Daughter: Ann Eilbeck Mason (January 13, 1755)
Son: William Mason (April 16, 1756-August 4, 1757)
Son: William Mason (October 22, 1757)
Son: Thomson Mason (March 4, 1759)
Daughter: Sarah Eilbeck Mason (December 11, 1760)
Daughter: Mary Thomson Mason (January 27, 1762)
Son: John T. Mason (April 4, 1766-March 19, 1849)
Daughter: Elizabeth Mason (April 19, 1768)
Son: Thomas Mason (May 1, 1770)
Son: Richard Mason (December 4, 1772- December 5, 1772)
Son: James Mason (December 4, 1772- December 5, 1772)

Home State: Virginia

Place of Birth: Stafford County (now Fairfax County), Virginia

Died: Gunston Hall, VA

Natural (unalienable) Rights

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.

These are words every American is probably familiar with and something every child reads in school. But what are “unalienable rights”?  The Declaration of Independence provides some insight to them in the text that follows, that among them are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but if these are only part among others, what are the rest?

Perhaps the first best place to look is the primary author of the Declaration of Independence itself, Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson said, “Bacon, Locke and Newton. I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences”¹. Francis Bacon influenced on separating religion and philosophy, Isaac Newton influenced him in science, but it was John Locke who influenced Thomas Jefferson on the Natural rights most.

So what is “Unalienable”? It simply means it cannot be alienated, or separated. These Rights can not be taken or separated from a person. They always belong to the individual, and never to anybody else. So what rights cannot separated from a person?

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

John Locke discussed Natural Rights most predominantly in his books Two Treatises of Government, with the second treatises on Civil government in particular discussing Natural rights. It was Chapter II of Book II, the State of Nature that Locke talks about Natural Rights in 11 parts, this what Thomas Jefferson would later call the unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. Locke starts off with this statement,

Which Document did it come from?

Where did the phrase come from? » online testing

Quick Thoughts: The Bill of Rights does not enumerate the People’s Rights!

 

On May 17, 2011 a Federal District Court Judge made a ruling that caught my interest, not the subject itself completely (though the subject still did catch my interest) but rather the rationale in the decision made. This decision was not based directly off of the Constitution itself for what it says, but rather off of previous courts decisions alone, using stare decisis. As I discuss in an article of stare decisis, stare decisis is prudent provided it used properly and in the correct manner and this is not a situation in which it was, by the Judges own admission in his opinion.

The background of this case concerns concealed weapons, the actual subject of the case is of actual little matter to my opinion here, rather it is his jurisprudence that I will examine. Yolo County CA banned concealed weapons, and a challenge was brought against the County citing 2nd Amendment protections.

The plaintiffs (contending the ban was unconstitutional) argued the same manner of interpretation should be applied to the Second Amendment as is the First Amendment (it is to protect maximum freedom of the subject). The Judges response to this was,

The Court sees no reason to analogize rights under the Second Amendment to those under the First, as plenty of case authority exists to provide a clear framework of analysis to facial challenges, without poaching precedent from another Amendment’s framework.

Quick Thoughts: Government run Anti-Rumor Agency

Recently Former President, Bill Clinton suggested their should be a United States or United Nation run agency for the purpose of debunking malicious rumors. This may sound good too some, but may also present a very troubling scenario. A Government run anti-rumor Agency would be one where the State is set up to be the sole source of “legitimate” information, and other sources or information that may be counter to this would be by default, treated as non-credible to the public. Leaving Government as the sole holder of what “truth” is regardless of the situation or scenario can only result in the State declaring what is valid and what is not. When Governments do this regardless of the motivations, this IS nothing more than propaganda.

If a story or source or information is critical of the government, and the government has declared itself as the final legitimate holder of truth, this presents a ways and means for governments to prevent and disregard potential legitimate concerns, ideas or questions of any subject. It would be nice to be able to trust a government to be prudent and proper with this responsibility, but history has a long dark history of this NEVER being the case, including the United States.

No one person, group, organization, government or nation should ever be able to declare a monopoly on what truth is. It is fine for government to present its facts or information in the public discourse, but these facts and information should ALWAYS be subject to public scrutiny, with no one place having the power to declare any questions regarding it as “rumor” and that to carry the public confidence in the form of a government agency.

The free flow and scrutiny of information from all sources and places must never be inhibited, and NONE should ever have a monopoly or the power to have a final say in “truth”. In a free society, there will be rumors, there will be misinformation, and there will be twists of what facts are to suit a specific purpose. But as long as all the information is available to all the people, with no single place having ANY authority to declare what “fact and truth” is, the people are better informed and are much better suited to decide on their own what the actual truth really is.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpps/news/clinton-wants-internet-rumor-debunking-agency-dpgonc-km-20110514_13204832

A short quiz to see how you interpret the Constitution.

Not a long quiz, but should give a basic idea on you see the Constitution!

Are you an Originalist? » Quiz Maker

Declaration of Independence influence on the Constitution

I have heard more than a few people say the Declaration of Independence has no impact on the Constitution. While from an absolute government can do and government can’t do aspect this is not false, it does undermine the fact the Declaration of Independence does in fact have significant relevance to the Constitution.

 

The Declaration of Independence was more than just the title proclaims in declaring Independence from the United Kingdom it was an indictment against tyrannical rule and what the role of a government should be. The Declaration went beyond merely stating the Colonies would no longer have any ties with Britain, the Founders also stated what the rights of the people are, and that government operates at the beckon of the people, not the other way around.

 

So how does this relate to the Constitution? The comparisons between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, go beyond the most famous words of the Declaration that most of us learn in grade school, “We hold these truths to be self evident…”. It is almost a cause and effect between the two, with the Declaration being the cause or stating the purpose of government and the Constitution being the effect of those beliefs in creating a government. Though the Constitution does have many influences, the direct impact of what the Declaration states is clearly evident.

The first place we will look is the second paragraph of the Declaration.

Constitution Quiz (Basic #1)

Constitution Quiz (Basic #1) » Create A Quiz

The Constitution says what?

The Constitution says what? » online testing

Looking for interested Contributors

I am looking for people who may be interested contributing or writing Articles for this site, no prior writing background is required.

All areas of interest of Originalism, Constitution background and the Founding Principles are welcome.

If you are interested or would like more details email me (email@discoveringthefoundingprinciples.com) or leave a comment here with a way to reach you.

The Shot Heard round the World (Concord, MA; April 19, 1775)

236 Years ago, the American Colonist began armed resistance to the British crown, in two small towns west of Boston, Massachusetts, well over a year before the Declaration of Independence was even debated.

By April 1775, tensions between the British and Colonist in New England, Massachusetts in particular had reached the boiling point. On April 14, 1775 British General Thomas Gage received orders to disarm the rebels, and arrest the main Colonial Leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock. General Gage proceeded with plans to march on Concord, Massachusetts west of Boston where a cache of arms was believed to be stored.

On April 18, 1775 Gage sent about 20 troops into the countryside west of Boston to intercept anybody on Horseback who may be able to pass word of the impending British Forces movement to Concord. Having received word of General Gage’s order, by April 8, 1775 most of the Colonial Leaders had already left Boston, with two prominent exceptions being Paul Revere and Joseph Warren. British troops had been noticed scoping out the roads and country side by Concord, but not a larger cache site in Worcester further South West, and the townspeople of Concord decided to distribute the weapons to other near by towns.

Convention of 1787: June 4, 1787 Day 8; One Executive, Council of Revision and the Veto

 

After a Sunday of, following debate on the Executive on June 2, 1787, the Convention resumes its debates with the Executive on June 4, 1787. June 2, resolved very little on the Executive, and little of what was agreed to will actually remain through the final draft, mainly the ability to impeach the President, while a seven year term would eventually be changed.

Singular or Plural Executive Decided

Charles Pinckney (South Carolina) resumes discussion on whether the Executive should be singular or plural, by moving,

“Shall the Blank for the Number of the Executive be filled with a single person”.

This motion is seconded by James Wilson (Pennsylvania) and noted it was opposed by Edmund Randolph (Virginia), since no arguments to this point in the convention had convinced him a singular was best. James Wilson observed the objections were not leveled so much at the measure itself, as much as at its unpopularity. On examination he could see no evidence of the apathy of the people, on the contrary was persuaded it did not exist. All know a single magistrate is not a king. One fact had great weight; ALL Thirteen States had a single magistrate. The idea of three heads has taken place in none, and Wilson saw tranquility in one head which would not be obnoxious to the people, they were used to the single executive. Three may divide, two may not agree resulting in Anarchy and confusion¹, and he foresaw uncontrolled and continued and violent animosities, which would interrupt the Administration, but diffuse their poison through the other branches of Government, through the States and the People. Roger Sherman (Connecticut) felt the matter is of great importance and ought be well considered be determined. He noted a single magistrate in each state. He also noted each State Magistrate had a council and favored one.

Constitution Convention Notes: June 4, 1787

This is the Notes of the Convention of 1787 (The Federal Convention) for June 4, 1787. The notes included are those that specifically address this day, and do not include notes of others who may address the topics of the day. You can download and read those, and the entire collection of Notes recorded at the Constitution Convention in the Links and Downloads section. These contain the entire series of Notes on the Convention from James Madison, Rufus Kings, James McHenry, William Pierce, William Patterson, Alexander Hamilton and Robert Yates, in addition with the Journal from the Convention can be read by following this link, Federal Journal of the Convention of 1787.

James Madison, do you know him? QUIZ

James Madison, do you know him?

How much do you know about the Founding Fathers? See what you know about one of the most well known, James Madison.

1. Who solicited James Madison to resolve an issue between MD & VA about the Potomac River in 1784?
   Patrick Henry
   George Mason
   James McHenry
   Edmund Randolph
   George Washington
   
   
2. James Madison signed which
   Continental Association
   Declaration of Independence
   Articles of Confederation
   Paris Peace Treaty
   Constitution
   
   
3. James Madison penned The Federalist [Papers] with whom?
   George Clinton
   Oliver Ellsworth
   John Jay
   Rufus King
   Robert Yates
   
   
4. James Madison served as Secretary of State to whom?
   George Washington
   John Adams
   Thomas Jefferson
   James Monroe
   Alexander Hamilton
   
   
5. James Madison served on the Committee that finalized the Constitution, what was it called?
   Committee of Detail
   Committee of Elements
   Committee of Manner
   Committee of Style
   Committee of the Whole
   
   
6. Who of the following, like James Madison, kept notes about the Convention?
   Alexander Hamilton
   Rufus King
   James McHenry
   None of the above
   All of the Above
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
7. Who may have attempted to Gerrymander Madison out of a US House seat?
   Alexander Hamilton
   Patrick Henry
   George Mason
   Edmund Randolph
   George Washington
   
   
8. James Madison was survived by what Founding Fathers
   John Adams
   Samuel Adams
   Alexander Hamilton
   Edmund Randolph
   None
   
   
9. Madison initially supported which in the Convention of 1787
   1st Branch elected by the State Legislatures
   President has power to make War and Peace
   The Legislature appointing Judges
   Representatives should have a two year term
   The Constitution should be ratified by the People
   
   
10. Madison did the following during the Revolution
    Assisted in writing MD Constitution
    A Colonel in the Army under Washington
    Governor of Virginia
    Member of the House of Burgess
    Member of the Continental Congress
    
    

Learn more about James Madison here
http://www.discoveringthefoundingprinciples.com/2010/12/who-are-founding-fathers-james-madison.html

James Madison, do you know him? Quiz: ANSWER KEY

James Madison, do you know him?

ANSWER KEY AND LINKS

How well do you know our founding?

Take this short quiz and find out how well you know our founding?

1. Who presented the Virginia Plan to the Constitution Convention on May 29, 1787?
   Patrick Henry
   James Madison
   George Mason
   Charles Pinckney
   Edmund Randolph
   
   
2. Rhode Island did not have delegates at the Constitution Convention because
   The Upper Chamber in the Legislature failed to approve it
   Rhode Island did not want to alter the Articles of Confederation
   The Delegates did not arrive at the Convention in time
   Rhode Island did not elect Delegates in time
   Rhode Island was not aware the convention was taking place
   
   
3. How many Amendments were in the Bill of rights Congress presented to the States in 1789
   10
   11
   12
   13
   14
   
   
4. What State did not ratify the Constitution in its first Convention?
   Massachusetts
   New Hampshire
   New York
   North Carolina
   Virginia
   
   
5. How Many States proposed amendments to the Constitution when they Ratified it?
   3
   5
   7
   9
   11
   
   
6. Who was selected as a Delegate to the Convention but refused to attend?
   John Adams
   Samuel Adams
   Patrick Henry
   John Jay
   Thomas Jefferson
   
   
7. What was the first to propose a bicameral legislature
   Virginia Plan
   Pinckney Plan
   Benjamin Franklin in an Address
   New Jersey Plan
   Great (Connecticut) Compromise
   
   
8. How may persons were debated to be the Executive (President)
   1 was only ever considered
   2
   3
   4
   5
   
   
9. What was the first to recommend a Convention in May 1787
   Mount Vernon Conference
   Annapolis Convention
   Petition of the States following Shays' Rebellion
   Act of Congress under the Articles of Confederation
   Invitation of the State of Pennsylvania to hold a Convention
   
   
10. The Articles of Confederation were fully enacted on
    June 12, 1776
    November 11, 1777
    March 1, 1781
    March 4, 1783
    September 17, 1787
    
    

Learn more about our founding history here: http://www.discoveringthefoundingprinciples.com/

Answer Key Here: http://www.discoveringthefoundingprinciples.com/2011/03/how-well-do-you-know-our-founding_06.html 

How well do you know our founding? Answers and Links

Take this short quiz and find out how well you know our founding?

ANSWER KEY 

Quick Thoughts: Free Speech must be protected, even when offensive.

Today the Supreme court handed down an 8-1 ruling that protests in conjunction with funerals is protected under the 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.

Though what the protestors may say, and the message they convey may be of the most offensive and insensitive and done at the most inappropriate times, speech no matter how offensive, insensitive and ill-timed must always be protected. Standards of the protection speech in public must never have limits, except for the those that directly endanger the public, like screaming “fire” in a movie theater, or directly advocating the physical harm and immediate of someone. But no limits should ever be placed on the “decency” of speech because if limits are placed on it, it leaves the standards to the whim of man. If the standards of decency where left to what a person feels is “decent”, this leaves open the ability to limit speech of political nature. What one considers as essential political speech and something that needs to be brought to peoples attention, another may find indecent. Only one entity would have the ability to decide what is “decent”. By allowing government to decide what is decent, it opens the door to give government the ability to suppress or outright prohibit speech which is critical to government or policy.

The free expression of opinion should always remain absolute, subject to no test of decency. In this time of a very polarized electorate, neither side should be able to deem what of the opposing side is or is not “decent”. Only in an environment of the free exchange of all ideas can the people be the most informed, limiting any point of view is to deprive the people as whole of an avenue to, One: express their views, and Two: hear other or opposing views.

Speech can generate the full spectrum of emotions, and can be extremely powerful. We may enjoy hearing the good and what we like in speech, but remember this speech will be offensive or disagreeable to others. Wrongs cannot be righted if speech is limited, since many times when the wrongs of society are first addressed it was considered “offensive” to discuss it. A society can only be as just and free as its speech is, no matter how many it offends. When a society limits speech, it is limiting its own freedom, and also one of the most critical methods of correcting itself, by addressing the offensive things that occur in a society.

Stare Decisis; Legitimate Precedence or Bad begetting bad.

Stare Decisis (ster-ē-di-ˈsī-səs) is a Latin word meaning “stand by the decision”, it is the use of precedent, or prior judicial rulings,  in determining a law in question. Merriam-Webster defines it as¹:

A doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice.

A simple internet search will turn up various different ways to define stare decisis, but all will follow the same basic principle in its definition, a doctrine of using what courts have ruled before on a similar case and apply it to a similar case. Stare decisis can be argued in many different ways from criminal and civil law, arbitration, etc., but the focus here will be only in regards to interpreting the Constitution in the Federal Court System, and the role it should play in determining what law is.

As an Originalist, stare decisis has legitimate use in not only the Supreme Court but inferior courts as well. But I also contend stare decisis is a doctrine that has no place in certain regards when determining if a law or case before the court is Constitutional. Being an Originalist an inconsistent application must be avoided in order to remain consistent in interpreting the Constitution across all cases and scenarios that may arise. So in order to do this, situations on stare decisis prudent use need to be recognized, and they way I do this is two fold:

1. What court is reviewing the case.
2. On what aspect of the case to apply it.

 

Were the Founders Originalist?

Were the Founding Fathers originalist, this is a question I get more often than most others, along with, “Were did Originalism come from?” or “Which Founder was an Originalist?”. The first thing that needs to be discussed is, what Originalism is. Justice Antonin Scalia describes it here in remarks to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005 (What is Originalism and Original Meaning?). In his remarks Justice Scalia says the following:

Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people.

He does not contend to be a “strict constructionist” and goes on to state, that he does not believe anybody should be. An Originalist is one who believes the meaning of the Law is what it was understood to be by those who adopted it, the people who ratified the provision in question. It is this group of people, whether in the Convention of the States in 1787-1789 on the Constitution, or the various bodies who ratified the 27 Amendments to the Constitution, that granted the permission to give power to government. Only the people and these bodies can cede power, it cannot be arbitrarily taken, and because only they can cede the power it must be understood, what power they in fact meant to cede to government, the Original Meaning of the provision in question. To sum up the basic foundation of an Originalist is, I put this way,

For all Originalist the basic beliefs are that the Constitution is the Authority in which the government operates, and is done by the consent of the People, and the people expect it to be followed. It is a binding contract of conduct between the legitimate power [the people] and the acting power [the government], as in all contracts it defines what the limits of it are.