Search

THE EVOLUTION OF RIGHTS AND WRONGS IN AMERICA

Chuck Klein ©1998

HUMAN RIGHTS:

At first both the concept and practice were very simple. Right was right and wrong was wrong and the government's role, via the constitution, was to make sure our rights were protected and wrong-doers were dealt accordingly. Our founding fathers feared more than anything else, government intrusion into their lives. In the early days there were few laws, almost nonexistent law enforcement, no bureaucracies and the ratio of government employees to civilians were minimal.

Prior to the Revolutionary War human rights were determined by the whim of the King or his designee. After the formation of The United States of America two distinct classes of RIGHTS were soon recognized and granted to all citizens: UNALIENABLE and CONSTITUTIONAL.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS are those rights that could not be traded, sold, bartered, negotiated or otherwise disposed of. Any and all Americans were automatically free to engage in any activity as long as it didn't adversely affect another human -- keep him from enjoying his UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. In other words Americans were entitled to live free and pursue whatever made them happy. Each person also had the UNALIENABLE RIGHT to use what means were available to him, including, but not limited to, military arms, to protect and insure his life and property against any criminal assault, be the criminal another human being, corporation or...government entity.

Because our forefathers felt so strongly about some of our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS they included the most sacred in a Bill of Rights and attached this register of liberties to The Constitution -- "the supreme law of the land." These CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES are what has and does distinguish America and Americans from all others. Violation of these
 RIGHTS is what causes the rage that seethes in almost any conscientious and constitutionalle educated citizen. Not unlike previous revolutionaries, this fury is the essence of militias and other groups that long for a return to a society where everyone abides by the same rules and regulations. These patriots are not anti-American or bent on destroying American, per se. They are livid with anger at the systemic disregard of our CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES as well as contempt of our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

The Second Amendment, taken at face value, means that anyone may literally own and carry any type of "arms" anywhere sans licenses, permits or special taxes. Of course, reasonable citizens recognize that certain persons, such as mental incompetents or children, should be excepted. But, federal, state, local ordinances, and judicial rulings are NOT the legal and correct method of enacting these exceptions.

If "we the people" do not want ordinary citizens to have a .303 Vickers Machine Gun mounted on their SUV - then changing the constitution is the only way to incorporate the exception.

It is not within the rights of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branches to make these exceptions. Nor is it legally within the powers of any bureaucracy to infringe upon any UNALIENABLE RIGHT or CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE.

Despite what detractors of the 2nd Amendment believe, the CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE, our UNALIENABLE RIGHT, to do anything we want with regard to weapons is set in stone. However, arrest, confiscation, conviction and prison is in store for anyone who violates laws that prohibit certain "arms" activity, regardless of the fact that these laws are unconstitutional. How did this happen? Laziness?

KLEIN'S LAW OF LAWS: "We are NOT a nation of laws - we are a nation of constitutions. Laws, statutes, court decrees, presidential edicts are subservient to constitutions."

Conspiracy? Contempt? Superiority? All of the above? Just because something is set in stone doesn't mean that it can't be changed. But, only a replacement stone will work. Statutes, executive orders or judicial decrees will not, LEGALLY, change the stone's mandate. In plain and simple words: The ONLY way to change a constitutional amendment is to make a new amendment.

Changing the Constitution is a lengthy process that sometimes yields unintended consequences, a la, Prohibition Amendment [18th] and the Income Tax Amendment [16th]. This, coupled with a desire for control, is why judges, Senators, and Members of Congress tend to resist constitutional changes. Historically, it's been much more expedient for law makers and judges to deal with troublesome constitutional matters in their own bailiwick or by just ignoring matters they deem politically incorrect. It is easier to unilaterally declare the 2nd Amendment does not apply to: machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, "underage" citizens, and concealed weapons, etc., than it is risk a new constitutional amendment that might force an attitude adjustment on the so called politically correct.

Today, HUMAN RIGHTS have become either NEGOTIABLE or JUDICIAL RULINGS. A negotiated right is somewhat like a plea bargaining arrangement. Even if you're not guilty the plea bargain is, in many cases, not only an alternative to bankruptcy, but accepting the negotiated terms eliminates the risk of a more severe outcome. An example
 of a negotiated right is one where the government says, if you want to carry a concealed weapon for your own protection, you must surrender your 2nd Amendment RIGHTS in exchange for the privilege of a state issued permit. Of course, if you desire to exercise your constitutional rights to "keep and bear arms" the government, with its unlimited funds, will force you into a very expensive and long trial. The outcome of such a trial has been predetermined by the many previous and precedent setting [unconstitutional] laws and JUDICIAL RULINGS.

JUDICIAL RULINGS are rights as defined by a court. When a 2nd Amendment issue is raised the JUDICIAL RULINGS, themselves, have been in violation of the CONSTITUTION. Judges, when ruling in favor of restricting "arms", are violating their Article VI oath to "support this constitution...." When it comes to issuing rulings on "The right to keep and bear arms," a Judges fear of going against political correctness is far greater than complying with The Constitution's Article VI. The reason for this is simple: There is no de facto penalty -- IT IS NOT A PUNISHABLE CRIME -- for violating Article VI, whereas, going against public opinion risks ostracism.

When it comes to firearms use and access, judges, with impunity, ignore sworn duties and violate unalienable rights and constitutional guarantees..

HUMAN WRONGS:

Today Government intrudes into almost every facet of daily living. Law enforcement, from local traffic control to national security, is Orwellian and bureaucracies beget bureaucracies. The number of government employees now makes up the largest voting block in history.

In western civilization, from the beginning of time, there have been only two kinds of HUMAN WRONGS: MALUM IN SE, from Latin, for wrong in and of itself and MALUM PROHIBITUM, also from Latin, meaning, wrong because society says it's wrong. We don't need laws to tell us that it is wrong to murder, steal or repudiate an oath to God.
 

Theft, murder and violating a sworn oath to G-d are MALUM IN SE, whether we have laws against those offenses or not.

All other wrongs, from failure to acquire a building permit to bribery, are wrong because we, society, via our law-makers, have labeled certain acts to be against public policy.

The United States is a codified republic inasmuch as nothing is against the law unless there is a law specifically saying so. Just like our HUMAN RIGHTS, the basis for all MALUM PROHIBITUM laws is found in the Constitution. The prohibited conduct and the conditions for declaring acts to be against-the-law are spelled out in a constitution, be it federal or state. All provisions, both RIGHTS and wrongs mentioned in a constitution, must be adhered to as a constitution is the supreme law and can only be changed by procedures outlined in its [the constitution's] own text.

When this country was established there were procedures made for writing other rules, orders and laws. These additional laws included STATUTES written by federal and state governments and ORDINANCES enacted by lesser government entities. All rules, orders and laws must CONFORM to -- not violate -- any portion of the U.S. Constitution. There was no provision then, and there is no provision now, to permit the President, the Senate, Congress or any judge to change -- VIOLATE -- any portion of the Constitution of The United States of America.

This nation of laws, laws based upon a constitution as the supreme law, has evolved through an era of legal predecence to a nation of judicial decree.

Today, beyond those wrongs listed in STATUTES and ORDINANCES, are edicts, penalties, and mandates judges, elected officials and bureaucrats have unilaterally enacted. Acts that heretofore were MALUM IN SE, such as attacking and killing men, women and children in Waco or Ruby Ridge, are not wrong if our government says so. Also, rights privileges and immunities, such as "the right to keep and bear arms," except under very narrow conditions, are now deemed a wrong.

There was no change to the Constitution, we the people never sanctioned a legitimate new set of rules. Some elected officials, sworn to uphold our rights and support the Constitution, have slowly eroded many of our HUMAN RIGHTS.

Our system of ordinances and statutes, based on the constitution, has become a pattern of judicial rulings, skirted by executive orders and bureaucratic decree, of which the constitution has become merely a guideline.

SOLUTIONS:

* Enacting The 28th Amendment to the Constitution will not only secure our "right to keep and bear arms," but will place long over due restraints on an out of control judiciary.

* Establishing Judicial Accountability: A proposed law to make the judicial branch accountable

* Additional reading on the subject: Dirty Little Judicial Secret

 

 

REALITY Four score and 130+ years and witness The Rise of the American Empire, and it is clear that the world has taken "LITTLE NOTE" nor "HAS LONG REMEMBERED" the meaning of ". . . GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE . . . ." Four score and 130+ years has produced "THE BRAVE MEN [and women], LIVING AND DEAD, WHO STRUGGLED HERE," and in the Caribbean, Korea, Vietnam, over there twice and Wounded Knee and Waco, who might have died in vain. Four score and 130+ years finds an obese and incestuous government so entrenched its elected and bureaucratic officials can twist, spin violate and ignore with impunity the mandate "SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION." Four score and 130+ years and tyrannical provisions, never intended by those who wrote about "UNALIENABLE RIGHTS," have become common place. Four score and 130+ years and self reliance threatens to evolved into protect-us-from-ourself laws and political correctness to expunge constitutional correctness, offending all who have ever pledged ". . . ONE NATION . . . WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL." Four score and 130+ years and our barely breathing Constitution is under assault by self-serving executive orders, short-cutting legislative statutes and pompous judicial decrees. Four score and 130+ years and our resolve to "FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION, ESTABLISH JUSTICE . . . AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY" is failing. Four score and 130+ years and we are on the brink of the Fall of the American Empire while its citizens enjoy LIFE and the pursuit of HAPPINESS at the expense of LIBERTY and fail to honor the intent that the Constitution "SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND." Unless we return to our foundation, "...THIS NATION, UNDER GOD, SHALL . . . PERISH FROM THE EARTH."