Parts of the Constitution that have been infringed upon?

[Patriot123]

Can someone point out to me the parts of the constitution which have been infringed upon? I've been trying to look, and can't find too much, but I know they're in there... Somewhere.

[Chester Copperpot]

Can someone point out to me the parts of the constitution which have been infringed upon? I've been trying to look, and can't find too much, but I know they're in there... Somewhere.

Dude how much time do you have?

[heath.whiteaker]

Dude how much time do you have?

seriously. With the Patriot Act almost every right has been taken.

[nate895]

I could be here forever, so I won't even list any of them.

[nate895]

seriously. With the Patriot Act almost every right has been taken.

Not everyone, that act didn't take away your guns, Brady did though.

[ToryNotion]

I think an important point to say is that at some point in our history the consitution was changed from a document that promoted limited federal goverment and liberty to one that enabled an enlarged federal government. I'd look at the era of the 1860's. This is where some rolling back needs to occur.

[Patriot123]

The Bill of Rights has been infringed upon... I'm talking about the actual constitution. I've skimmed through a lot of it, and I really just can't find much. I mean, article one section ten, I believe, says how states can only have money be gold and silver. It doesn't say, for example, that the federal reserve can't do otherwise. But at the same time, there's nothing that says the federal reserve cannot come into existence. See my point?

And Nate: Please. Please just list out a few sections from the constitution that have been infringed upon. I need this for a website.

[pcosmar]

Nearly all of it.
It would be hard to find something that has not been infringed or negated .

[Patriot123]

Well can you just pull up a copy of the constitution and just list out a few quotes from it that have been infringed upon? Please. I really need this. It's for a website that I'm putting together, and of course I didn't get much help in the previous topic I made.

[heath.whiteaker]

Not everyone, that act didn't take away your guns, Brady did though.

Yeah... I got to thinking about that... however if I start to build a Gun Collection I might be considered a terrorist. If considered a terrorist, they would not give me access to an attorney and could keep me locked up with out bail thanks to Habeous Corpus being suspended.

[heath.whiteaker]

the Bill of Rights goes along with the constitution so in essence it is a part of the it. It is because of constitution that the bill of rights came into play. Patrick Henry was just one of the people who refused to sign it.... he said "I SMELL A RAT" These Immortal words were uttered by Statesman Patrick Henry when he refused his invitation to attend the US Constitutional Convention in 1787

[nate895]

If you're looking for it being violated, look no further than the bill of rights, as it states mere truisms. Social Security isn't in the Constitution, Welfare, pretty much any New Deal legislation, Great Society as well. Congress also said that the President had the authority to go to war, that's not in the Constitution.

[Patriot123]

See, I need things for the website I'm putting together that are simply put black and white. I just can't say, "well there's nothing in the constitution that says the Federal Reserve is a legal entity, so you must assume that the federal reserve is illegal." I need actual black and white stuff. Actual quotes from the constitution which directly contradict what we are doing today.

[ConstitutionGal]

Actually, you need look no further than the 10th Amendment. The following are to be left entirely up to the states or the people (just a few examples):

1. Education
2. Health care
3. Retirement
4. Direct/unapportioned taxation
5. Communication
6. Travel
7. Environmental laws/regulations
8. Employment
9. Freedom of association

The way Congress gets away with all these 'laws' is they pass legislation, then they use OUR money (stolen from us through the IRS) to bribe/blackmail OUR states into actually passing and/or enforcing these mandates. Take for instance the No Child Left Behind Act; the feds didn't actually say the local schools HAD to do al the things contained therein; what the federal legislation actually did was say IF the states don't 'adopt' the provisions set forth therein, then the states wouldn't be able to received any 'federal' education funds. They did the same thing with the old 55mph speed limits and seat belt; basically, the states either fell into line or they 'lost' their 'federal' highway funds. They're more than likely going to use the exact same tactic to get the REAL ID Act passed at the state level (i.e. bribery and blackmail).

So while, in many instances, Congress isn't actually MAKING the states comply with their wishes/mandates (which would go against the U.S. Constitution), they ARE using subterfuge to accomplish the same goals by using our own money against us (through our states).

[Kregener]

Let us just start with the Bill of Rights:

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.

God taken out of schools is a CLEAR prohibition on the "free exercise" of religion. Installing the religion of evolution is a CLEAR establishment of same. 'Free Speech Zones' and the McCain-Feingold bill are violations as well. Censoring the We The People website from posting materials relating to the Great Tax Ponzi Scheme is a violation of free speech and a violation of redress of grievances also.

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.

Do we really need to tackle an explanation of this one? EVERY gun 'law' ever passed by Congress is in DIRECT violation of this amendment!

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.

WHEW! Safe for now! Unless you have had soldiers quartered in your home against your wishes?

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.

RICO Statutes violated this one BIG TIME. Roadside checkpoints, airport anal probes, papers on demand, no-knock raids, warrants issued solely upon the 'testimony' of criminals seeking to lessen their own culpability, etc., etc., etc.

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 offense 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.

This one is tenuous. More people should evoke their 5th Amendment rights when dealing with the Police State, but sadly, most people do not know enough about our Constitution to do so. Unfortunately, you CAN be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law', it happens all the time. Excessive 'bail' (see Amendment VIII), Tasered for asking questions and demanding your rights, IRS confiscations...two seperate cases of 'double jeopardy come to mind: O.J. Simpson and the cops who pummeled Rodney King. They successfully defended themselves against the charges brought against them, only to be convicted on specious charges relating to the SAME INCIDENCES later.

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 defense.

'Speedy'? Today? Not likely. It often takes MONTHS to get to trial on any issue, and these trials often take MONTHS to reach jury deliberation. They also often move the trial to another venue stating 'bias' and 'public opinion' as their reason for doing so.

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

We seldom see jury trials in minor cases, even though it is our right. And every time anyone loses a case, Federal Behemoth or private citizen, it is 'reexamined' by another court...on appeal.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Is $500,000 excessive? $1 million? Happens all the time. Lets face it, most people could not afford $25,000 bail, let alone the amounts we see coming out of our judicial system today.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

LMAO! This one is so simple and idiot could grasp it! The Constitution was not designed to 'give' us rights, it was specifically designed to throttle the government from abusing its proper authority.

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.

We see what happened when some states tried to exercise their rights. The Civil War. The states cannot override the Constitution, and the Federal government cannot impede on States rights. We are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. A Republic is a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law...The Constitution.

[csinmo]

Let us just start with the Bill of Rights:

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.

God taken out of schools is a CLEAR prohibition on the "free exercise" of religion. Installing the religion of evolution is a CLEAR establishment of same. 'Free Speech Zones' and the McCain-Feingold bill are violations as well. Censoring the We The People website from posting materials relating to the Great Tax Ponzi Scheme is a violation of free speech and a violation of redress of grievances also.

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.

Do we really need to tackle an explanation of this one? EVERY gun 'law' ever passed by Congress is in DIRECT violation of this amendment!

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.

WHEW! Safe for now! Unless you have had soldiers quartered in your home against your wishes?

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.

RICO Statutes violated this one BIG TIME. Roadside checkpoints, airport anal probes, papers on demand, no-knock raids, warrants issued solely upon the 'testimony' of criminals seeking to lessen their own culpability, etc., etc., etc.

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 offense 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.

This one is tenuous. More people should evoke their 5th Amendment rights when dealing with the Police State, but sadly, most people do not know enough about our Constitution to do so. Unfortunately, you CAN be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law', it happens all the time. Excessive 'bail' (see Amendment VIII), Tasered for asking questions and demanding your rights, IRS confiscations...two seperate cases of 'double jeopardy come to mind: O.J. Simpson and the cops who pummeled Rodney King. They successfully defended themselves against the charges brought against them, only to be convicted on specious charges relating to the SAME INCIDENCES later.

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 defense.

'Speedy'? Today? Not likely. It often takes MONTHS to get to trial on any issue, and these trials often take MONTHS to reach jury deliberation. They also often move the trial to another venue stating 'bias' and 'public opinion' as their reason for doing so.

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

We seldom see jury trials in minor cases, even though it is our right. And every time anyone loses a case, Federal Behemoth or private citizen, it is 'reexamined' by another court...on appeal.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Is $500,000 excessive? $1 million? Happens all the time. Lets face it, most people could not afford $25,000 bail, let alone the amounts we see coming out of our judicial system today.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

LMAO! This one is so simple and idiot could grasp it! The Constitution was not designed to 'give' us rights, it was specifically designed to throttle the government from abusing its proper authority.

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.

We see what happened when some states tried to exercise their rights. The Civil War. The states cannot override the Constitution, and the Federal government cannot impede on States rights. We are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. A Republic is a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law...The Constitution.

Excellent post, Kregener. Thank you for taking the time to put that together.:)

[Patriot123]

Oi'... But again, I meant the actual constitution, not including the bill of rights. The actual articles of the constitution. I thank you for posting that part, but what I need is the sections of the actual constitutional articles which have been infringed upon. Just a few, at the least.

[csinmo]

Oi'... But again, I meant the actual constitution, not including the bill of rights. The actual articles of the constitution. I thank you for posting that part, but what I need is the sections of the actual constitutional articles which have been infringed upon. Just a few, at the least.

I think the most obvious is Article V, which states:


Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

It seems our Federal Government has forgotten, on many occassions, to ammend the Constitution so as to allow the broad sweeping powers they have commanded with public education, Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare.

[Chester Copperpot]

Oi'... But again, I meant the actual constitution, not including the bill of rights. The actual articles of the constitution. I thank you for posting that part, but what I need is the sections of the actual constitutional articles which have been infringed upon. Just a few, at the least.

ok ill have some for you in a minute

[FunkBuddha]

Oi'... But again, I meant the actual constitution, not including the bill of rights. The actual articles of the constitution. I thank you for posting that part, but what I need is the sections of the actual constitutional articles which have been infringed upon. Just a few, at the least.

Go to the library and pick up a copy of "The Constitution in Exile" by Andrew Napolitano. Be prepared to be disgusted.

Off the top of my head, Article I Section 8 defines the roles of congress. Among those roles is the ability to declare war.

The Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause have been bastardized to mean that congress can regulate anything they want.

[Kregener]

Again, the Constitution really does not grant us our rights, it is designed to keep the central government within its boundaries, so looking for "liberty lost" in it is really a moot point.


To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

There is one.


No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

LMAO!


No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

There is the cause of the Civil War, not slavery!


The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion...

Now, start paying attention to the buzzword; "democracy", and how it is touted as our form of government. Invasion? Has Uncle Sugar been paying attention? over 20 MILLION invaders are already here!

[Chester Copperpot]

Oi'... But again, I meant the actual constitution, not including the bill of rights. The actual articles of the constitution. I thank you for posting that part, but what I need is the sections of the actual constitutional articles which have been infringed upon. Just a few, at the least.

Keep in mind that alot of the States who originally signed onto the Constitution did so only with the understanding that there would be a 'Bill of Rights'.. Personally, I consider the first 10 ammendments as part of the original document. But that be as it may Here are some intrusions as follows:

Article I. Section VIII:

Congress shall have the power

11: To declare War, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.

12: To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.


Article I. Section IX:

2: The privilege of the writ of haeus corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

3: No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. (IRS loves to do this one)

8: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, prince, or foreign State. (AH, here we have the onus of the foreign lobbyist which loopholes this whole point.. plus Rudy getting Knighted, etc.)


Section X:

1. NO State shall: ... emit bills of credit (paper money); make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts...


This is just a few to get you started.. IF you want more I can find more.

[SovereignMN]

Here's one that gets overlooked:

Article 4, Section 3:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

During the War For Southern Independence the counties of West Virginia were occupied by the federal troops and forced to become a separate State.

[Goldwater Conservative]

The trick to how they've taken away our rights is that they've done it gradually enough that you can't just point to a single law. Even the Patriot Act is sneaky because it tweaks language here and there enough that on the whole it's an anti-freedom abomination, but in an argument you're not going to parse over 300 pages of legalese to prove your point (or, better said, nobody would listen).

[Chester Copperpot]

The trick to how they've taken away our rights is that they've done it gradually enough that you can't just point to a single law. Even the Patriot Act is sneaky because it tweaks language here and there enough that on the whole it's an anti-freedom abomination, but in an argument you're not going to parse over 300 pages of legalese to prove your point (or, better said, nobody would listen).

Its just like the boiled frog

[Antialiased]

Look, the original intent was a government with enumerated powers. Therefore, you won't find any prohibitions in the main text because it was meant to narrowly define what powers were being ceded to the federal government. That is one reason that a bill of rights was opposed - it would provide a colorable pretext for the federal gov't to assume powers not explicitly granted. For example, when congress is not given the power to regulate speech, why have a rule that freedom of speech shall not be abridged?

So, congress was given the power to regulate commerce between the states, yet, congress often passes criminal laws. You tell me, is growing marijuana for your own use 'commerce between the states'? Congress seems to think so. The trick is, if congress is limited by the text of the constitution, it is only limited by it's ability to stretch the meaning of the text.

For example: If I'm hired as a manager and one of my job 'duties' is to "supervise employees" and I'm allowed to interpret those words however I want, then I can just interpret the term employees to include me and interpret the term supervise to include the setting of wages... (^_^)... Now I have the power to raise my own wages. Thus, the problem is in allowing the one who is limited (the fed. gov't) to define it's own limits.

[Tugboat1988]

This is a post I made 2/1/08 on another thread. You don't seem to be on it so I'll repeat it for you.

The president has very few things granted to the office to do. One of those things amounts to a very large thing, but is ignored in a quality sinse. It's found in Article II, Section 3 -- "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That's one of those things that seems to be very easy to glance at, assume that it relates to established law, and then forget about it. But there is more that is ignored.

Please, someone define just one word out of that quote from the president's duties. OH, I have a Black's Law dictionary, so I'll do it for everyone.

Black's Law defines FAITHFULLY -- "Conscientious diligence or faithfulness in meeting obligations, or just regard of adherence to duty, or due observance of undertaking of contract." OH, there is more supporting comment, but that's enough.

A president also has a constitutional obligation to 'sign into law' bills presented from congress. But there is also a constitutional obligation to support and uphold the US Constitution. That makes it an obligation to ensure the Bill has no unconstitutional provisions.

Now, for those who would like to debate otherwise, consider the Constitution as a pact, or more directly put, a contract. Well, that's the way our founders viewed it, shouldn't we?

What's wrong with holding the president responsible in this regard?

But there is more potential available if people want to use it. Article V of the US Constitution, last sentence reads; "and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate."

I don't want to define 'suffrage' for you hear because it would be too easy, and besides folks should take it upon themselves to search such things out. But, I will recap something about the Senate, and interested folks should check what I say out for themselves.

Originally, senators were selected by the state legislatures, their purpose was to guard the interests of the state. The states interests were expressed, first in the US Constitution, and again in the 'Enabling Act Providing for Admission into the Union of States.' In doing so, they were in the senate to, for one, prevent unconstitutional acts.

In 1913, we changed the way senators are chosen to popular elections. We assume then, because we are taught that way or by assumption, that the Senate became just another legislative. But Amendment XVII, Popular election of sentators did not change the purpose of the Senate. And it did not change the State's interest in preventing unconstitutional acts.

So, there you go, three neatly packaged idea that are constitutional and available to hold politicains to their responsibilities. But will the public use them. I wonder.

And to add; That's one reason we need to get Dr. Ron Paul elected.

Here's another one: Article I, Section 8 "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as my, by cession of particular states, and the aceptance of congress, become the seat of the govenment of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful building."

If the above is what the US Constitution grants to federal government, why does it hold title to all that BLM, National Forest, Natinal Parks, etc, etc. Constitution doesn't grant the authority. Here's what it does grant concerning pulblic lands. Article IV Section 3, The congress shall have power to DISPOSE OF and MAKE ALL NEEDFUL RULES and REGULATIONS respecting the teritory or other property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state." Plus Article VI, first paragraph: "All debts contracted and engagedments entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United States under the Constitution, as under the confederation."

So, you see, the Constitution grants federal government authority to dispose of public lands withing the bounds of a State, and to set use limits on them, like forest reserves, health resort spas, public parks, and for other needful and appropriate uses. Article VI brings in the negotiations between the States and Continental Congress to render title to the various County governments of a new state when organized. The process was necessary when the king of England granted all lands in the original States and in the territories. He was sneeky when he granted every acre equally to all the ten new states equally. It was resolved by the original States agreeing to transfer title to the Continental Congress for temperary holding so that title transfer to pioneer settlers would not have to go to every State for signoff of title, thus expiditing settling of the territory and forming of the new states.

From there you should research to connect the dots. It's a good exercise because you'll find that much of our public forests and parks were NATIONALIZED by presidential proclaimation and congressional misconstruction and abuse of power. Didn't the use of "National Park' ever give you a clue? Well, as typical, it escapes most of us until we question the actions of government.

So, now I'm tired and will go back into the shadows.

Tugboat

[FindLiberty]

Thanks Tugboat... And you did not use any offensive language!

The first posts in this thread that speak of the "AMENDMENTS to the
Constitution" use the awful "BoR" phrase that I personally hate hearing.

It's offensive (like calling the U.S.A. a Democracy). It's a bad habit picked
up while attending the mandatory government youth propaganda camps.

The first several of the amendments did cling on to the original concept:
1-10 are EXPLICIT PROHIBITIONS the Fed Government was not
to touch! On the other hand, your "rights" are (were) nearly infinite.

Quiz: When in public, do you have any "right" to pick your nose with
your left thumb? How about with a finger on your OTHER hand? Not
mentioned in the BoR, so I guess not... (it's generally uncouth, unless
you are sitting in your car at a red light, then G. Carlin says it's OK!)

Things have gone downhill, a lot, lately. e.g., a procedurally correct
18th amendment in 1919 (but it ended up causing the country severe
unintentional consequences). It was appealed by the 21st in 1933
"legalizing" alcohol again. Later, they did not even bother with the
amendments e.g., the disastrous Federal "War On (some) Drugs" was
initiated so your "right" to send your kid to the store to pick up grandpa’s
codeine cough syrup just went away without a fuss. Guess it wasn't listed
in the BoR anyway.

Somewhere along the line, "government prohibitions" turned into
your "rights" and now, even those supposedly listed "rights" are going
away too. 'Cept for the 3rd... unless you lived in Waco TX, then you might
even wonder about that one too.

It's the nature of government: It's like fire... Bind it down with chains of the
Constitution... etc.

[Tugboat1988]

Liberty,
You are perfectly welcome. About the Bill of Rights, here is a reference from the Yale Avalon project located www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/resolu02.htm

Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments ot the Constituion; March 4, 1789

Congress of the united States, begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fouth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstrution or abuse of it powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution: .....snip.....

As anyone can see, given that they actually read the words, the Bill of Rights are declaratory and restrictive on government -- a denial of powers as any Right mentioned preigsisted the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution, the organization of government, and probably the organization of Union depend upon government not abusing its powers.

Interestingly enough, the States are bound to the same concept as the federal government concerning these. Enabling Acts were provided to proposed new States giving authorizations to form State constitutions, and become a member of the Union of States on an equal footing with the original States. Among the requirements agreed upon by the delegates were these:

Adopt the Constitution of the United States which includes the Bill of Rights as noted above, the denial of power concerning.

Their state constitutions shall not be repugnant to the Constituion of the United States and the Declaration of Independence.

These deny power to the State, to subdivisions of the State, and political organizations under its State constitution. These are infringed upon and violated in every State today.

So, you are gathering a lot of fodder to chew on. I wish you much in good effort as you put together you masters documents. grin

Tugboat