SCHOOL OF FREEDOM 103D THE BILL OF RIFHTS

(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)
(Part 1 of 2)
I had a recent discussion with a friend who happens to be a liberal, about the limits and restrictions that legislators from both parties have attempted and in many cases succeeded in placing restrictions on our freedoms, particularly when it comes to free enterprise.

I know that Glenn Beck wrote a book called "How to Argue With a Liberal and Win" and I've even read it, but after this latest discussion with my friend, I would propose that you not waste your time or energy arguing with them. It depletes too much of your time and energy as you begin to realize that you will waste most of your time defending the correct definition of words that progressives have changed to win arguments. Quite frankly, it's like arguing with my teenaged daughter. Those of you who have or have had teenaged daughters know exactly what I'm talking about. Those who don't will experience it eventually...

But in this discussion with my liberal friend, what became abundantly clear was why so many of the representatives from the various colonies, insisted upon adding a Bill of Rights to the US Constitution in the first place. The way the Constitution was written, a Bill of Rights was not technically necessary. The Magna Charta, the first bill of rights, was in response to egregious acts by the king against the nobles. It was necessary for them to reassert their rights, which were already understood under their common law, but had been subverted by the king.

How quickly those in power seek to legislate our rights away from us. When you get people like my friend into government seats, they immediately begin to seek for ways to create their utopia, which generally has close ties to socialism and communism. My friend went so far as to say that he thinks implementing communism would be the perfect form of government, and that the only reason why it has such a stigma attached to it is because every government that has attempted to implement it has been a totalitarian government. I responded in turn, that this is the only way communism can be implemented. People would never accept communism willingly. Of course he disagreed.

And so I seek to guard my freedoms and liberties jealously, and if adding a bill of rights to the United States Constitution helps to protect them, then so be it.

As I discuss the ten amendments which make up the Bill of Rights, I will do it from the perspective of how our rights are currently being eroded so that we can choose to "gird up our loins--fresh courage take" and fight the good fight to fully restore those rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

First Amendment Part One - Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Unfortunately the liberals and progressives have succeeded in redefining this right as proof of separation of Church and State. The founding father's intent was to ensure that no one religion got a strong foothold in the new government where anything like the "Church of England" could result. The founders believed (as I do) that government should promote religion among its people in order to keep them moral and upright. And so they set up the Constitution in a manner that would allow all religions to flourish and not allow one to overtake another in power and influence over government matters. We have a serious responsibility to reestablish to right of leaders within our government to promote our Christian values. The pendulum has swung much too far the other way. George Washington referred to his army as a "Christian Army" and no doubt would be saddened by the degree to which religion has been relegated to the back seat in our nation.

First Amendment Part Two - The Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

Political correctness was the first barrage the liberals/progressives fired in attempting to put a dent in this amendment. Once the notion of political correctness was an accepted concept, now they are actively promoting legislation outlawing "hate" speech. The adage: "Evil happens when good men do nothing" has never been truer than it is now. It is time for us to stand up against these forms of oppression and abrogation of our rights.

First Amendment Part Three - Congress shall make NO law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble.

That it is necessary for us to obtain "permits" at local, state, and federal levels in order to peaceably assemble is proof this right has already been abridged. Want to see just how much this freedom has been abridged, organize and hold a rally without getting permits and see how long you are allowed to peaceably assemble. The reason this right made the cut out of the 160 plus rights that were proposed, was because of how important our founding fathers felt it was for us to protest against bad government. Which makes it ironic how quickly governments at all levels implemented the permit process in order to protect itself against us protecting ourselves against them.

First Amendment Part Four - The Congress shall make NO law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Read the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act to see to what degree this right has been abridged. Of course being labeled by our government as an enemy combatant gives them every right to abridge that right doesn't it? In my estimation, both Acts should be repealed without debate.

Second Amendment - Because a well-regulated state militia is necessary for the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government.

The state militia is NOT the National Guard. It is you and I. Consequently, each time a local, state, or federal law is written curtailing our ability to own or carry certain weaponry, they are indeed infringing on our right to bear arms. If our government is allowed to own cannons, and other high caliber weapons, telling us that we can only carry non-automatic low caliber weapons to defend ourselves against their encroachment leaves us with both hands tied behind our backs. Not that I advocate that we all should carry a nuclear arsenal to defend ourselves, but if I want to own an Uzi, or an automatic AK-47 to defend myself against a similarly armed criminal or an overreaching government, I should be able to.

Third Amendment - No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war except in a manner prescribed by law.

Thankfully this amendment seems unaffected by the liberal/progressives for the time being...

Fourth Amendment Part One - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects shall not be violated.

Our banks and the IRS routinely violate this as if it is not even a valid amendment. To take action which would prevent them from prying into your financial affairs would brand you a criminal. OSHA, EPA and other regulatory agencies also regularly violate the rights of individuals to act in their privately owned businesses without interference or scrutiny absent criminal activity.

Fourth Amendment Part Two - The right of the people to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.

Key word; unreasonable. It is unreasonable for someone to go through our garbage, open our mail, tap our telephones, or put us under any kind of electronic surveillance.

When George W. Bush compelled phone companies to tap our lines in his "warrantless wiretap" fiasco, under the guise of outing terrorists, it was a direct violation of the fourth amendment. The NSA also regularly violates our privacy by listening in on our conversations without our knowledge or consent.

Consider how the courts viewed our right to privacy in the 1800's in the 1886 case of Boyd v. United States. The court ruled that for the government to compel Mr. Boyd to produce his private papers (by subpoena) constituted unreasonable search and seizure under the fourth amendment, and that it also caused him to be a witness against himself thereby also violating the fifth amendment. Therefore, because it violated the fifth amendment, it was an unreasonable search and seizure under the fourth amendment. Until the passage of the sixteenth amendment, the courts were stellar in their record of defending our rights under the fourth amendment.

Without going into lurid detail, I know of several individuals who have faced off with the IRS who have had money and property seized from them without due process. We have winked at this practice for years, believing that it is our duty as patriotic citizens to participate in the fraudulent IRS system. Now that we are becoming enlightened as to the degree to which the administrative code of the IRS violates our rights under the fourth amenedment, perhaps we will do more to fight against their methods and actions and even the very existence of the agency.

Fourth Amendment Part Three - No warrant shall by issued by the courts unless it is based on probable cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, and describes the particularity of the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.

There are currently many laws on the books, which subvert our rights under the fourth amendment. If you examine closely the laws which either give our bankers cover or force banks to provide personal, financial information against our will and wishes, you will quickly see that the fourth amendment has already been shredded to pieces, and while they may not be coming into our houses (yet) they manage to get as much or more information than they would if they did conduct a physical search of our residences.

Fifth Amendment Part One - No person shall be required to answer to a capital or infamous crime unless the charges have been formally stated in a presentment or an indictment by a grand jury.

So far, I think we're still fairly safe with this one. While it may be true that cases may exist where the Grand Jury system has been abused, for the most part, so far, the chances that we will every be judged worthy of death before having our case presented to a grand jury for charges to be considered, are slim to none. If the government ever decides to begin enforcing certain provisions of the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act however, all bets are off.

Fifth Amendment Part Two - The only exception to the grand jury hearing shall be in the case of a military court-martial where the accused is a member of the armed services and the crime is a military offense during a time of war or great public danger.

As previously mentioned, if the government can declare you an unlawful enemy combatant (remember how the head of Homeland Security attempted to label any conservative individual who disagreed with Obama, aka Tea Party member, a potential domestic terrorist? That lays the groundwork to label you an unlawful enemy combatant), then they can ignore this fifth amendment right and jeopardize our life without our case going to a grand jury.

Fifth Amendment Part Three - No person shall be subject to double jeopardy for the same offense.

I'm concerned by the overzealousness of both our legislative bodies and our law enforcement officials in this regard. Many laws exist on the books, which overlap and give a different name and penalty to an offense that already exists under a different name. This results in police officers to do what I call "stacking the charges." When someone allegedly commits a crime, the officer writes up the offender with as many charges as possible to make sure that at least one will stick. While this may not fit the exact profile of what is meant by double jeopardy, if someone were to throw 20 rocks through 20 windows and get 20 counts of damaging someone's property and if convicted each count gets them 2 years in jail, then they would be confined for 40 years. Considering that that one act of choosing to damage another's property was indeed just one act, 40 years seems just a bit excessive to me.

Fifth Amendment Part Four - No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

See Miranda Rights...

Fifth Amendment Part Five - No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

Administrative law has torn this part of the Fifth Amendment asunder. IRS, FCC, Interstate Commerce Commission, FAA, OSHA, DEA, BATF, EPA and many other quasi-governmental agencies have portions written in their codes which allow individuals to be incarcerated and/or property to be seized if it meets conditions written under the code. This type of law subverts the rights granted to us by God and found written in the Bill of Rights under the US Constitution. We need to step up our efforts to win these freedoms back.

Fifth Amendment Part Six - No private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation.

Which brings us to the abuses of the "Eminant Domain" law. If a municipality decides it needs your property to fill a public need, it can force you to sell you their property. Which is fine as long as you get a fair price for your property.
There are many notible cases of abuse in this realm, but the one that comes most readily to mind is a case back east where a city made a deal with the devil (er, I mean developer) to build a shopping mall - for the public good mind you - and found ways to pay a fraction of what the property was worth. We must be jealous guardians of our freedoms and to make sure that when other's rights are encroached upon, we defend them to the hilt as well. Otherwise, we're next!

Our freedoms and liberties are under attack and have been for quite some time. We have sat back and taken it for at least three generations. It is now time for us to stand up and defend them for our future, our children's futures, and our posterity for generations to come.

I had a conversation three years ago with a close friend from my childhood who is very religious and who would consider himself a conservative. I told him of my concern over the erosion of our freedoms. He asked me to be more specific. I told him that I found the Patriot Act very offensive to the intent of our founding fathers and I was totally caught off guard by his response. He told me that he felt the Partiot Act was necessary now because we were living in a very different time with different concerns that our founding fathers never could have anticipated. He went on to say that 9-11 was a game changer, and that we should indeed be willing to give up liberty for security.

I realized at that point, if my friend that I had known for years felt this way, then there must be millions of conservatives who either do not understand the Constitution, or they don't understand how the laws being written subvert that Constitution. Whichever it is, realize that knowledge is power. That you are taking this course through the George Washington School of Freedom indicates that you are one of the ones who care enough to educate yourself and find out more about the founding of this great nation so you can do your part to defend our freedoms and liberties. Thankfully. I just wish there were more who would do the same.

Written by Monte Bateman

Instructor, George Washington School of Freedom
(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)
The George Washington School of Freedom
2975 W. Executive Pkwy, Suite 183
Lehi, UT 84043
www.gwschool.net

(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)




The George Washington School of Freedom Inc, 2975 W. Executive Pkwy. Suite 183, Lehi, UT 84043, USA

To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit: