How The Bill of Rights Enslaved Us

How the Bill of Rights
Invited Government
to Enslave Us.

Subtitle: “How A Colonel (Riley) Would Destroy American Freedoms in Lincoln’s Name”

This is a portion of  what RPMckinely (Ron), a “second in command” of O.A.S,  wrote in his thread “A Little information and knowledge about our Constitution and the Bill Of Rights”

This is when they decided that in order to protect the people themselves from their own government, and to restrain that government from becoming too restrictive and abusive towards the people, then it would be wise on their part to make sure there were certain rights and freedoms of the people that the government could never regulate or remove. These rights and freedoms would be protected against any kind of government abuse. These certain rights and freedoms that were written into our Constitution are what we refer to today as our Bill of Rights.

In the beginning the government was regulated to only those eighteen enumerated powers and authority, while the people were restricted only by their own levels of regulation and moral retrains.

The founders had to make sure that of all the freedoms and liberties assumed by the people there would also be a certain few of those rights that the government could never regulate or remove.

And as history now shows our founding fathers were right, certain rights and freedoms had to be protected from any potential government abuse……

Actually Ron’s description is quite  inaccurate, probably to the surprise of many. And the oversight by so many  in understanding why this is inaccurate,  is a part of the cause of the predicament in which we find ourselves today.   Ron is the poster child as to why “little knowledge” is dangerous to our freedoms, and history stands to refute his Elementary School rendition of the Constitution.

The fact of the matter, and the Constitution itself, is those rights were already protected in the Constitution by the strictly enumerated powers that bound the federal government, as well as the rest of federal government’s design in that document.  If government has no authority to deny rights under any of its specified powers, then there would be no real need to specify those rights.

Not a one of government’s enumerated powers even allow the creation of ANY LAW whatsoever that might be applicable within the States themselves.  If anyone doubts this, go ahead and read Article 1, Section 8 “Powers of Congress” and see if any of those enumerated powers even hint at the ability to write laws applicable within the States, that might allow the government to impair freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, due process, or allow that personal papers and effects on our persons and within our property might be subject to unreasonable search and seizure.  The power to violate those things is nowhere present in those legitimate powers of the federal government, and the States themselves were each recognized to be sovereign, also immune to federal intrusive dictate.

Alexander Hamilton discusses those Rights at length in Federalist #84, at a time before they were yet included in the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.    To the dismay of those who now read Federalist #84 today, Hamilton argues at length why those rights should NOT be included in the Constitution.  Many interpret Hamilton’s statements as cause to condemn him as a statist having no regard for those Rights, but in doing so they ignore Hamilton’s own words, as well as a great portion of this country’s more contemporary history.

Hamilton not only indicates why a Bill of Rights should be unnecessary, but  beyond that, why the inclusion of such would even be “dangerous”:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

To paraphrase what Hamilton indicated in #84,  the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution would serve as a “colorable pretext”, or an excuse,  for government to claim as powers those Rights actually stipulated in the Bill of Rights, and indeed Hamilton has been vindicated because this is precisely what our own history has shown.

Even we ourselves have been trained to reference that Bill of Rights as if it were actually a vital grant of those rights, when in truth it only recognizes rights that exist even outside it, even as indicated in the 9th Amendment. Our own reference to the “Second Amendment”, rather than directly referencing our unalienable right to keep and bear arms in our own defense, without caveat or infringement, shows the degree of our own brainwashing in treating the 2nd Amendment as if it were the actual provision of that right.

Here is another contemporary example of which I speak,specifically regarding the right to keep and bear arms, showing how screwed up even our own mental concept of our rights are, even from their listing in the Bill of Rights.

Caravan To Midnight Host John B Wells asks U.S. Marine Major (Ret) Bill Donahue, “What about in furtherance of disarming [Americans]…?” Donohue replies “… in a Representative Democracy, if the House and Senate voted to outlaw arms, and changed the second amendment, and voted a law to outlaw arms, that is a law we’d have to abide by… that’s the way it works”.


This is scary stuff, particularly coming from our military! The right to keep and bear arms is NOT a grant from the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, but rather only a right recognized therein. Furthermore, no “law” is able to change the 2nd Amendment, nor is even any amendment to the Constitution able to change that fundamental right, which again is not a provision from the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not “allow for” the Right to keep and bear arms, but rather recognizes the existence of that unalienable right, and phrases it in the Second Amendment in context of the terms for the federal government. Furthermore, we are also deliberately NOT a “Representative Democracy”, but rather a Constitutional Republic. The people’s “representatives” have no authority to remove unalienable rights, no matter how large the majority may be that elected them.

Unfortunately Major Bill Donahue has previously sullied the Constitution and our freedoms, and this was shown in events demonstrating a clear tie between Major Donahue and Colonel Harry Riley of Operation American Spring.   In 2008 Harry Riley engaged in a vocal campaign condemning 33 Senators who he alleges voted against a bill making English as the Official language of these United States.  Major Donahue posted an article on this matter entitled “Colonel Harry Riley USA Speaks Out”,  consisting of an email letter written by Harry Riley, in which Riley himself apparently gave the email the subject title of “The Colonel and Mr. Lincoln.”  By this title, Harry Riley evidently imagines himself in esteemed company, standing beside Lincoln.   Riley concluded that letter with a quote of Lincoln’s: :

PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID:‘Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damages morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, quickly tried and hanged!!!

(I will ignore that Riley was sloppy and wrong, and Lincoln never actually said these words, but rather they are the result of a misrepresentation by J. Michael Waller. I will likewise ignore the fact that Riley was again sloppy and wrong about the terms of the English language vote, however the audience should be detecting a persistent trend here.)

It should be rather disturbing to every American that these words attributed to  Lincoln would be revered by anyone, but particularly by those in the U.S. military, given that Lincoln was the President who single-handedly chose to make war on the sovereign States, who had lawfully chosen to disengage themselves from a federal government that had repeatedly abused its own constitutional obligation to the South over decades, resulting in the deaths of 620,000 Americans, the devastation of the entire country, and the arrest without trial of anyone critical of the war. (See Habeas Corpus, “Writ of Liberty”, and Copperheads  and also Clement L. Vallandigham)

It should be even more chilling that Harry Riley, a U.S. Army Colonel,  would revere these words, especially since Riley himself has set up in his 3-phase plan for Operation American Spring, the institution of a “Tribunal” to consist of hand-chosen persons sitting in judgment without regard to law, obviously entirely outside and in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, but quite in agreement with the institution of military martial law.  Colonel Harry Riley has far more in common with the totalitarian ambitions of one Barack Obama  than he admits to, and his blind supporters care to recognize.

The sole purpose of the government is not the Union itself, and most certainly the purpose of that government is NOT to  protect the U.S. military, even from only criticism.  The singular purpose of government, any and every form of government, even as clearly identified in the Declaration of Independence,  is stated to be:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,…

Lincoln’s abolishment of Habeas Corpus, a fundamental right to challenge the reason for one’s imprisonment,  so as to promote the unhindered warfare upon his own fellow Americans and impose his tyrannous dictate on the entire country, does not make Lincoln a person to be revered, but rather reviled.   Colonel Harry Riley quite clearly needs to review the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution itself, … unless of course his actual intent is as his actions repeatedly show, and not actually involving the restoration of Constitutional governance.

Our government was meant to be shackled by those limited enumerated powers, and never meant to be allowed into the business of “Rights”, as those rights specifically and implicitly are recognized to protect us from government itself, and never intended to be used as any sort of “demand license” to be used against our fellow citizens, as it is abused now. For example, the idea that a community must accept a Mosque in its midst, along with the repeated call to prayer, simply because of the 1st Amendment’s “Freedom of Religion”, should be utterly ridiculous. Similarly the idea that our schools must be turned into litigation battlegrounds for expectant “free speech”, should be equally ridiculous, but then neither should those schools be zones of compelled indoctrination. What happened is the government used the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as a “colorable pretext” to imply it was in the business of policing rights, and by government’s selective choosing, the provision of rights, when rights were designed to specifically protect from that government, and to prohibit just such actions!

From those rights, we see the federal government taking that “freedom of the press”, and believing it might even now, recently, just as Hamilton warned, have a “power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it”, to define who and what constitute that press, so as to limit that protection, and afford the federal government protection from it, giving the law the Orwellian title of “Media Shield law” (Hamilton seems prescient here); or cherry-picking what is not an undue “infringement” on the right to keep and bear arms, with the Court even arguing in  current precedent that these 2nd Amendment rights do not apply to the  States. All of these acts, and more, use that very Bill of Rights as just such a “colorable pretext” to provide excuse that those rights can be further defined, and even might be Amended as indicated in Article V, even to be entirely annulled!

This all involves the federal government believing its job is to police those Rights, from the “colorable pretext” of the Bill of Rights itself, when those rights are specifically to protect against that federal government.  How far we have allowed this country to be dragged from our Founder’s vision.

The federal government really began policing rights, and by their recognition, both creating and denying those rights, in the aftermath of the Civil War, which itself represented the oppression by force of the rights and legitimate authority of the sovereign people of the southern States.   This corruption began with the adoption of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, and the forced ratification of the 14th Amendment to be re-admitted to the Union (which those states allegedly never left, and never could leave), and the 15th Amendment with its protection of suffrage.   Yet there was no need for such an Amendment to abolish slavery, as no one was ever enslaved by anything in the Constitution! However We, the people have continued to be enslaved by the government’s entry into rights distribution.

Somehow, in the recognition of blacks as free persons, government entered into the rights policing business via the back door of Civil Rights, and our freedoms were lost in the process.  The founders wisely rejected the idea of the Constitution directly dictating the emancipation of blacks, because allowing such  power to be vested in government would create the very sort of tyrannous government able to dictate the terms of society,  precisely what this nation’s founders fought to free themselves from. Yet this dictatorial government is what the corruption of “rights” has allowed in preset times.

This corruption then escalated with the first Progressives jn the early 20th century. This corruption of the government’s role, and the function of the Constitution itself, is nowhere seen more clearly than in the  18th Amendment and Prohibition, dictating to the citizenry what they could, and could not, imbibe.   The purpose of the Constitution is nowhere to grant rights, nor limit them,  but rather to define government itself, so that inclusion of an Amendment dictating what the citizenry cannot imbibe, is indicative of the Constitution’s intent and government’s authority, both being radically corrupted.

If not for such corruptions,  Civil Rights could never provide an excuse for government to compel within the states school integration, and even mandate busing, violating the very freedoms of those being bused, and inappropriately using the force of the National Guard to uphold such tyrannous overreach. Sure, we can all recognize an integrated society as being a positive thing, however the means of achieving this came about through tyrannous abuse of government force, justified under the pretense of doing something good and positive, just as is being done with Health Care.  The ability of government to dictate the subjective “good”, became the entree for a limitless array of unsavory dictatorial actions, all oppressing Freedom.

Unless we return government to its “box”, only exercising those specifically enumerated powers, then we will be continually battling on a slippery slope of our own allowance, in which government is repeatedly usurping authority over rights specifically intended to protect us from that government, and sacrificing our freedoms on the process.  To allow government reach beyond that box, is to provide government the excuse and opportunity to enslave us, and this is what we’ve seen with the EPA, FDA, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, ObamaCare, and most recently, from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Nevada this past weekend.

No, the Bill of Rights itself does not provide us the vital grant of our rights, but its existence within the Constitution became the means by which we are  enslaved.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: