Bill of Rights - Tenth Amendment Rights

What are our Tenth  Amendment rights?

What exactly does the Tenth Amendment say?

“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.”

 

My interpretation of the Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment is pretty cut and dry to me.  It restricts the federal government from expanding powers to things not specifically assigned them in the US Constitution or specifically prohibited to the states.  It further says everything else is reserved for the states or to the people.  The Tenth Amendment seems to conflict with some of the things going on in government today.

Obama Care is in direct violation with the Tenth Amendment.  How can the federal government take over the health care system when the US Constitution does not specifically give then the right to do it.  I believe this decision to regulate health care lies with the states or the people.  Massachusetts lawfully set up a health care system because it is a state.  The federal government is overriding the states authority to maintain a healthcare system already in place by taking it over nationally.  The US Supreme Court already ruled on this, but I do not see how they missed the Tenth Amendment.  It is very clear in what it states.

Our federal government is expanding very rapidly taking over many things and regulating businesses so heavily it is almost impossible to start up a business these days.  If we keep going this direction we will end up being a socialist nation within ten years.  Our economy should collapse withing eight years if we don’t start making the federal government abide by the Tenth Amendment.  If we, as a nation, do not turn this around soon, it will be too late to get things turn around later.  We will fall over a cliff so steep there will be no climbing out.  I love my country and really hate to see us ignore this restriction, the Tenth Amendment, our founding fathers put in place to protect us from just exactly is happening in our country today.

Bill of Rights - Ninth Amendment Rights

 

What are our Ninth  Amendment rights?

The exact wording of the Ninth Amendment is:

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

This is rather cut and dry again.  The Ninth Amendment states that the bill of rights is not all inclusive. Other rights aside from those listed in the bill of rights may exist, and just because they are not listed in the first ten amendments to the US Constitution doesn’t mean they can be violated.  It is basically a statement to let rights expand as necessary, but does not allow for the removal or limitations of any rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

How has the Ninth Amendment been used recently?

The Fourteenth Amendment was put into place to ensure the children of African Americans and Native Americans are considered United States Citizens by being born in the United States.  The Fourteenth Amendment coupled with the Ninth Amendment are the grounds used to say the children of illegal immigrants are also citizens if born in our country.

This was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it is being interpreted that way, so we are granting citizenship to our country base on illegal acts of the children’s parents.  I believe in immigration to our country, but I really feel sorry for the people waiting in line after paying the applicable application fees, that are being delayed entry as a legal immigrant based on the illegal immigrants here in front of them.

Well, the Ninth Amendment is very necessary, but when interpreted an improper way is actually hurting a lot of immigrants waiting in line to become US Citizens.  I hope we can work something out to get the legal immigrant flow back up to where it used to be so these people are not inconvenience anymore than they already have been.

Bill of Rights - Eighth Amendment Rights

What are our Eighth  Amendment rights?

Here is the exact wording of the Eighth Amendment:

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

OK let’s look at the Eighth Amendment restrictions over to see how it protects us as US Citizens.

It restricts courts from setting excessive bails or fines when not warranted according to the severity of the crime and flight risk of the accused.  Then it goes on to restrict the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments on the accused.  A judge cannot sentence a 16 year old to a chain gang prison for shoplifting.  Or the sentence cannot include something like, walking through knee deep snow in shorts for 30 minutes every morning before breakfast.  Or flogging a prisoner every morning before breakfast.  All of these would fall under cruel and unusual punishments.

Why did our founding fathers think it was necessary to put the Eighth Amendment in place?

Remember that many counties in Europe during this period put people in prison for long periods of time when it was not warranted.  A good example of this were the debtor prisons.  If someone could not pay a tax or any other dept, they could be imprisoned until the debt is paid.  The ironic thing about this is that many stayed in prison for years with no way to earn the money to pay the dept while in prison.

Our found fathers also saw the mistreatment of prisoners in Europe.  This is one of the reasons they left their homelands and came to America in search of a better way of life without the fear of being treated terribly by the government.  The long arm of the King of England reach over the ocean though and the mistreatment found it’s way to our shores.  This is one of the reasons for the Revolutionary War.  So they put the Eighth Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure our citizens were protected from the restrictions listed in the Eighth Amendment.

Bill of Rights - Seventh Amendment Rights

What are our Seventh  Amendment rights?

Here is the exact wording of 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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

 

OK let’s break the Seventh Amendment down to see where any misconceptions may be.

The first segment to the Seventh Amendment (Trial by jury in civil cases) reads:

“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved…”

In any civil case, where the value of the item(s) in question are valued at $20.01 or more, the right to a civil jury trial is in effect.

“…and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

Remember the Sixth Amendment applies first when a law is broken so the Seventh Amendment only applies secondary to the Sixth Amendment in these cases.  In cases where there is damage to property or something similar that doesn’t directly break a law, the seventh Amendment applies. When a jury trial is held under the Seventh Amendment, anything decided by the jury cannot be later re-examined by another trial, in a US court, except as the rules for common law allow.

Here are two examples of when the Seventh Amendment would apply:

You park your $70,000.00 car near a construction site and a crane malfunction causes the crane to drop an i-beam on the car causing total destruction of the vehicle and no injuries to people.  No laws are broken, but you lost $70,000.00 worth of car through no fault of your own.  In this case you could sue the construction company, by civil jury trial, for the $70,000.000.

If a person steals your car and totally destroys it at a chop shop, the theft and willful destruction of the car would be considered breaking the law, and criminal prosecution under the Sixth Amendment would apply first.  Then, depending on the circumstances, you or your insurance company may be able to also sue the thief under the Seventh Amendment.

Bill of Rights - Sixth Amendment Rights

What is the exact wording of the Sixth Amendment?

The exact wording of the Sixth Amendment is:

"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."

Now let's break the Sixth Amendment down into segments and see what it says:

Hear is the first Segment of the Sixth Amendment:

"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..."

Any US Citizen accused of a crime has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, have a public trial, with an impartial jury, within the district the crime was committed, without waiting an unreasonable amount of time for the trial to take place.  This is all pretty self-explanatory and a great deal of this is in our Miranda warning most people associate with the Fifth Amendment as described in my Fifth Amendment post.  Another portion often known as a speedy trial is to prevent US Citizens from being locked up for years without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.  Our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure we were never mistreated in this manner as was routinely done in many parts of Europe.

Hear is the Second Segment of the Sixth Amendment:

"...to be confronted with the witnesses against him..."

Ensures the accused confronts any accusers.  The main reason for this is because a basically honest person usually has a very hard time lying to someones face if they are wrongfully accusing that person of a crime.  It also does the converse and allows the accuser to positively identify the the accused to ensure the correct person is in custody for the crime.  If the proper person is in custody, the accuser will know the actual perpetrator of the crime is punished for the crime.

Hear is the Third Segment of the Sixth Amendment:

"...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

This segment of the Sixth Amendment is self-explanatory and simply states the accused has the right to an attorney and may gather witnesses through a compulsory process.

Bill of Rights - Fifth Amendment Rights

What does the Fifth Amendment say exactly?

Here is the exact wording of the Fifth Amendment:

“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.”

Let’s breakdown segment one of the Fifth Amendment

Segment one of the Fifth Amendment contains quite a bit of information, but is pretty cut and dry in how it breaks down.  The first segment reads:

“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…”

This means that people can only be held for capital offenses and other infamous crimes on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.  It makes the exception of cases involving the military or militias when performing officially during times of war or public danger.  What happened to the requirement of Grand Jury presentation of indictment.  It seems our legal system has ventured away from the requirements of the Fifth Amendment.  The military and militias were specifically exempted, due to the need for them often to act quickly during times of combat and heightened tensions.

The second segment of the Fifth Amendment reads:

“…nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…”

Suspects of a crime cannot be put in jeopardy of life or limb if a subject is tried of the same crime twice.  Our current judicial systems interprets this to mean a suspect cannot be tried for the same crime twice.  That is not what this segment says.  It says the subject cannot be sentenced to loss of life or limb if tried a second time for the same offense.  We are granting criminal that do not get convicted during their trial the right not to be tried again under what we call double jeopardy.

That was not the intent of this segment of the Fifth Amendment.  It protects suspects from the possibility of being tried twice for the same crime with capital punishment hanging over their head on both occasions.  Many courts in Europe would try offenders over many times until they finally got the death penalty conviction they were looking for and then put them to death.  Our founding fathers were attempting to prevent this practice from being used in the US Court systems.  Not to prevent a serial killer from being tried multiple times for the same offense in order to give them life in prison to remove them from society.

The third segment of the Fifth Amendment reads:

“…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…”

This segment of the Fifth Amendment simply says any accused persons have the right not to bear witness against themselves and cannot be forced to do so.  Nor can they be mistreated by depriving them their life, liberty or property until authorized through due process of law.

The last segment of the Fifth Amendment reads:

“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

I am assuming, since the entire Fifth Amendment is talking about an accused rights, the last segment is still talking about the same.  With this in mind, this segment simply says property cannot be taken from an accused person for public use without paying them or their estate what the property is worth.  Why did our Founding Fathers specify public use (presently called eminent domain) in this segment?  Does that mean, if the property is taken from the accused, but used privately, the accused does not receive compensation?  Or was it understood property could not be taken for private use?

Now let’s put this all together:

People can only be held for capital offenses and other infamous crimes on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury except cases involving the military or militias when performing officially during times of war or public danger.  Suspects of a crime cannot be put in jeopardy of life or limb if a subject is tried for the same crime twice.  Any accused persons have the right not to bear witness against themselves and cannot be forced to do so.  Nor can they be mistreated by depriving them their life, liberty or property until authorized through due process of law.  Property cannot be taken from an accused person for public use without paying them or their estate what the property is worth.

Where did Fifth Amendment Miranda warnings come from?

In 1966, Miranda v. Arizona the US Supreme Court found that Ernesto Arturo Miranda’s Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights had been violated during police contact and processing of the case.  So the Supreme Court decided to mandate rights advisement prior to questioning of any individual suspected of committing a crime.  Advisement was to consist of both Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights and the court listed them as:

“…The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.”

 

That is the Fifth Amendment.  It is rather long, but lists some very necessary things to ensure our citizens rights are not violated.  We do pass our rights of protection under the law on to legal visitors in our country, as we should.   Anyone illegally in our country should always be treated humanely, but we should not give them all the rights our Constitution reserves for us, the US Citizens.  Some even want to pass our rights on to captive terrorists, which I feel is giving them way too much respect especially those that mistreated and even beheaded any of our citizens.

Bill of Rights - Fourth Amendment Rights

What does the Fourth Amendment say exactly?

The exact wording of the Fourth Amendment is, “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.”  After reading this you must know the Fourth Amendment is one of the most important amendments protecting us from our government.  Well, except for maybe the Second Amendment.

OK let’s break the Fourth Amendment down to see where any misconceptions may be.

The wording of the Fourth Amendment is self-explanatory and our country has been very good about ensuring the rights in the Fourth Amendment have not been routinely violated until just recently.  Let’s take a look at the first segment:

“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…”

All US Citizens have the right not to be searched unreasonably nor their property seized, in any way, or for any reason, by any government officials (Police, Military, IRS, EPA, Government Investigators, etc.), at all levels (Federal, State, County/Province, City, etc.) without the government official producing a warrant, proving to the US Citizen they have met all these requirements.

1. The government official/agency has gone before a Judge and explained exactly shat they will be searching for and specifically where they will be searching for the item.
2. The government official/agency demonstrated to a Judge, they have probable cause (reasonable belief) that a crime has occurred, that the fruits of the crime are located in a specific location under the accused US Citizen’s ownership or control and the Judge believed the government official had sufficient probable cause to request the Search or Arrest warrant.
3. The Judge has administered an oath or affirmation to the government official to ensure they are being honest in their reporting of the incident to the Judge.

The Fourth Amendment is pretty easy to understand and is very necessary to ensure US Citizens are never taken advantage of by our government like British Citizens during this same era.  Our founding fathers wanted to ensure we, US Citizens, were never under the thumb of the government just due to our politics, financial status or governmental criticisms.  Lets look at the last segment of the Fourth Amendment:

“… and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I’ve already touched on this in the explanation of the first segment of this passage of the Fourth Amendment, because it was hard to leave it out and still make sense in the explanation of the first segment.  Now lets expand on it as necessary.  This segment of the Fourth Amendment mandates the need for the government official to describe where they are going to search and who or what they are going to be searching for to the Judge prior to the Oath or Affirmation.

Why is this segment of the Fourth Amendment so important?

This forces the government official to be logical in what they are requesting so they do not get a blanket search authorization when it is not warranted.  For example, if the investigating official is looking for an automobile, should the Judge allow them to search in the center drawer of the US Citizens dresser?  No way!!!  In this case the Warrant will restrict the search in places the Automobile might logically be found.  That could mean a basement to the house if there is a ramp allowing access, but if it is closed in concrete all the way around, as most basements are, then the search should not include the house at all.  Garages, barns, fields, root cellars or any place the automobile could logically be found must be listed on the Warrant.

If the government official was unaware that a shed was on the property, and it is large enough to conceal the automobile, he/she must return to the Judge (in person or by phone when authorized) to get the shed added to the warrant so it may be legally searched.  There are exceptions to this rule if evidence may be destroyed or removed without immediate action by the government authorities; however, they must be able to prove this at the pretrial hearings or the evidence will be disallowed by the Judge.

What exceptions may we find?

There are other exceptions the the Fourth Amendment like the Automobile Exception.  When a police officer lawfully performs a traffic stop on a US Citizen during normal traffic operations.  An official may search anywhere occupants of the vehicle can lunge or plunge, even the trunk.  This is done for officer safety, after criminals accessed the trunk from the back seat of cars, removed firearms and killed police officers during routine traffic stops.  In these situations a warrant is never obtained and what is found during the search is admissible in court as evidence.

Now let’s take a look at present day occurrences and see how they fit into what the Fourth Amendment states:

Now we have the United States Government with the ability to intercept any and all our telephone and computer communications base on an exception to the Fourth Amendment called Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  This is not a bad idea if it was used as originally passed by our Congress.  This act was to be used to intercept terrorist communications in, out and within the our country.  If the government used it in that manner it would be constitutional in most cases, because it would seldom target US Citizens.  As we know, the US Constitution only applies to US Citizens.  Now the US government captures large volumes of communications from agencies like AT&T, Verizon and other huge communications conglomerated.  There is no discrimination by the government as to where the communication originates, whether terrorists could be involved in the communications or if it has any bearing on National Security at all.

Our government would never purposefully violate our rights as explained in the Fourth Amendment, right?

Our government has no problem violating our rights.  That has been my experience over the last 54 years.  They are directly violating the Fourth Amendment because the US Government is gathering large amounts of US Citizens communications and saving them for future use.  We, US Citizens, have the right to be safe in our communications with any other US Citizen.  If a call or email originates or is received by a probable terrorist in this country, originates or is received by a probable terrorist outside this county, or originates or is received by a known terrorist nation, it should be saved and held for national security purposes.  There is no excuse for the US Government to have these communications companies save all our (US Citizen’s) communications constantly and turn over a huge numbers of our calls, texts and emails to the government.  I wonder what kind of kickbacks they are getting.

What really bothers me about this is that between 1978 (when all this started) and now I am sure I’ve done something wrong.  Not necessarily illegal, but something that would embarrass me or prevent me from getting a security clearance.  If I bounced a check or considered filing bankruptcy, I would have talk to my family about it either over the phone or though email.  The government has no right to stockpile information like that about any US Citizens.  We seem to be the losers here, because the people we are electing into office are not concerned about this practice of steeling our communications, in fact they keep voting it back in as law.  There is nothing better than getting spit on by people we elect to office.

The big thing is, this is not done to protect our nation form terrorist attacks or any other legal reason.  It is done to illegally (according to the Fourth Amendment) to compile information about US Citizens that may or may not be used later to spark an investigation involving someone who the government should have never had any information about to begin with.  They can be very selective in who they investigate as well.  Example:  If you publicly say something and can prove it that may reflect discredit upon the US President or someone else with power in the Government, they have one heck of a lot of information to blackmail or just discredit you.  If I tried to gather this kind of information about anyone, I would be in prison.  Maybe that is where the government officials and participating communication company  big wigs need to be for violating our Fourth Amendment rights.

Well, I think I got my point across.  Please feel free to comment, I am looking forward to reading your views on the Fourth Amendment.

Take care and God bless you folks!!!

 

Bill of Rights - Third Amendment Rights

What are our Third Amendment rights under the US Constitution?

What exactly does the Third Amendment say?

"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."  This is pretty cut and dry, but the Third Amendment has one passage that leaves some areas I am unsure about and that is the last sentence segment which reads, "... but in a manner to be prescribed by law."  Well these laws will not be written until the incident occurs requiring implementation of the Third Amendment.  Then what ever agreement, if any, our government can reach with the invading force will be put into place.  Our troops will follow the laws they have in place already governing this type of action.  We do not know what the rules are, or at least I could not find them published anywhere, but they are probably in writing already.

Why is this restriction placed on military forces by the Third Amendment so important?

Many people I know tend to overlook the Third Amendment, because our military members, during peacetime, even short periods of Martial law do not take over people’s homes; and today's citizens have never, in their lifetime, seen a police action or war fought on our soil where this may become an issue.  Does that mean the Third Amendment is not important?  I think it is very important especially with the downsizing of our military which is in the plans right now.  We may become a very attractive target by adversary nations due to our weakening defenses.  This may make the Third Amendment to the US Constitution a very important restriction on military forces, foreign and domestic, to protect us from being thrown out of our homes into the cold of winter.

To whom does the Third Amendment actually apply?

The Third Amendment applies to any US Military member.  What some don't understand is that it applies to any invading nations forces as well.  Does that mean they will abide by our Constitution?  Not at all.  Many nations would totally ignore the requirement levied by the Third Amendment, but after the war or police action is over.  Violators can be prosecuted as war criminals based on their violating these laws after invading our sovereign nation.  If agreements are reached between our government and the invading nation establishing laws for them to follow, then those laws are what must be adhered to by both sides.  Hopefully our law makers will take care of noncombatants if this ever happens.  I have my doubts, because it seems many of them do not know the US Constitution, much less the Third Amendment, based on laws they have passed in the past.

I think the Third Amendment will be a moot point for most households in our country.  I will fight the invaders until they kill me or they leave due to heavy casualties.  They will never enter my house until I am dead or hurt so bad I cannot resist anymore.  Many Americans feel this way and this is the main reason Japan decided not to attack the mainland US during WWII.  They knew they would have to fight us, the civilian citizens, at every turn.  I feel nothing has changed in this regard even with all the anti-gun legislation in the past or proposed.  Those of us who want to own guns, as authorized by the Second Amendment, already own enough to put up one heck of a fight.

NOTE:  I was trained as a marksman, believing in one shot one kill, and with over a thousand rounds of .338 Lapua ammo and 200 rounds of 10mm pistol ammo, that is a lot of kills. Well, unless I am killed before finishing off all my rounds.  My neighbors will all be fighting right along with me, giving up their rights under the Third Amendment as they become combatants as soon as they shoot at the enemy  My neighbors, even though they are not military trained as I am, are very good hunters.  So, that is probably over ten-thousand rounds between us and all of us are very good shots with the firearms we own.  Whow, I forgot about all my crossbow bolts, and my neighbor’s arrows for their compound bows.  We even have one heck of a silent kill capability.  Well, this is another story.

The Third Amendment is critical for noncombatants to attempt to ensure they are treated properly.  That is about 40% of our population.  And those people are mostly in urban areas, but the inner city gangs may stand up against any invading force to protect their territory.  We may have more willing combatants than statistics predict.  If I was a country wanting to invade the United States of America, I would think twice before attempting to do so.  A lot of the invading countries military would be lost at the hands of normal, everyday, armed US citizens.  Then our military, dwindling in size due to defense spending cutbacks, can come in and clean up what is left of the invading forces.  I wonder if this isn't President Obama's thought process in reducing the size of our military, he may believe no one will invade us due to all the armed citizens, and reducing the size of the military keeps us from helping other nations in the future.  That would force an isolationist posture of the United States in the world.  Anyway, the Third Amendment is critical in protecting those noncombatants that do not want to put up any resistance during the conflict.

The Third Amendment is very important in protecting the noncombatants in our country if there is ever and invasion of another country or if Martial Law is declared short or long term where our military may need to occupy an area in the United States where noncombatants own homes and property in the area.  Understanding the Third Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, and implementing the critical laws is a must for our law makers to protect our children and any person unwilling to be a combatant for any reason.

Take care all and God bless you!!!

Bill of Rights - Second Amendment Rights

What Are Our Rights Under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution?

 

What exactly does the Second Amendment of the US Constitution say?

The Second Amendment to the US Constitutions is pretty cut and dry. Many people try to interpret it in different ways, but if you just read what it says it is very easy to understand. Here is the exact wording of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution:

"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."

How should the Second Amendment be interpreted?

The literal interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

The best way to interpret the Second Amendment is to read it exactly as it is written. Let's break it down. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ... shall not be infringed." Mandates well regulated militias, stating they are necessary to the security of a free state. It then goes on to say, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms. There is no other reasonable way to interpret the Second Amendment.

Other Interpretations of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Some people try to erroneously tie the militia mandate into the right to bear arms of the Second Amendment. If you read the amendment it specifically separates the militia and right to bear arms. I honestly believe our founding fathers were smart enough to write the amendment to say the right to bear arms was restricted to militia members if that is what they intended. These intelligent men decided not to write it that way. I wonder why!

The way it really reads is-every US citizen has the right to bear arms regardless of whether they are members of a militia or not! This well punctuated separation allows us to bear arms no matter what our government or the United Nations try to say. No governmental entity has the right to deny US Citizens the right to bear arms and form well regulated militias. Well regulated militias are necessary to ensure the militias operate within the law or in the best interest of the state, whichever the state government determines is proper.

Restrictions to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

There are none. When you read the Second Amendment there are no restrictions provided by our founding fathers. The Second Amendment does not allow for any governmental restrictions of these rights. It was put in place to prevent the government from restricting our ability to bear arms, even the most advanced weapons, so that our government or other governments are not able to force improper laws, rules, regulations or other controls over our citizens. They wanted to ensure we never had to confront, with inferior weapons, the likes of the British government at the time.

So, we can legally own any weapon we can afford to buy. I personally have no need to own an automatic firearm, but some people may and they can spend the money for the license. I do; however, see the reason to own semiautomatic firearms and own many. It is my right under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution to own these types of firearms and I'll stand by, and support this right until I die. Hopefully, I won't die, because I am supporting my Second Amendment rights. I am willing to die supporting of any part of our constitution though, because our constitution is the hart of our legal rights in preventing unreasonable control by governing bodies of any kind.

NOTE: It is common knowledge that Japan decided not to invade the mainland of the United States during WWII because our citizens were so well armed. They knew they would have to fight, every step of the way, with our patriots hiding behind every tree, ready to kill as many of the enemy as possible before they themselves died. This is one heck of a deterrent for other nations who are aggressive toward our nation. It is still true, just watch the fictional movie titled "Red Dawn"; we patriots would all fight as hard as those boys and girls fought. What liberals see as a problem (patriots owning firearms), is exactly what scares other nations from militarily assaulting the United States mainland.

We have the right to bear arms without restriction, but what is prudent?

We must ensure criminals and people with violent mental disorders cannot purchase or own firearms. This is just common sense. Anyone convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a violent mental disorder, by a licensed Psychologist, should not be allowed to purchase or own a firearm.

This cannot include people involve in an argument with their spouse or significant other unless a violent physical assault is involved and they are convicted in a court of law. Right now, domestic violence charges are tacked on by many District Attorneys in all cases where spouses and/or significant others have a verbal altercation where no physical violence is involved. This is ignorant at best and illegally encroaches on a persons legal right to own firearms. This automatic process and other attempts to take firearms out of the hands of a responsible gun owner is outrageous. It is just another way for our government to restrict people who can legally own firearms.

Remember, the fewer citizens possessing firearms, the easier for the government to force their unlawful will upon the citizens of the United States. I am not paranoid, but our government is going ways that may force citizens to bring them back into check. Standing up and saying they must abide by constitutional direction may not be enough. It may take forming a regulated militia and standing up for constitutional directives. I pray this never happens, but we will see!

The overall breakdown of our rights under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

Our rights under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution are 'we have the right to own any firearms we believe meets our needs' as long as we can afford them. Additionally, I add through common sense, a firearm owner must not be a violent criminal and must be of sound mind and trained in firearm safety. Public safety is paramount, but we must ensure our government does not deny qualified firearm owners their rights to own the firearms they see fit.

Please look this 35 minute video over too. My brother sent it to me and I found it very informative.
I also want you to see a great way to earn extra money. I'm a disabled veteran and am using this system to stay above the poverty level with my income. In fact, way above the poverty level after about four months of fairly hard work for about two hours a day. Check it out, you may like it instead of being denied jobs constantly, after they see the wheelchair, like I've had to put up with over the year.

Bill of Rights - First Amendment Rights

The First Amendment of the US Constitution is Very Controversial.

What does the First Amendment actually say?

“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.”

What is the proper interpretation of the First Amendment?

Our founding fathers were very literate and knew the use of semicolons to separate major meanings and flows of a sentence.  Because of this lets break this down a sentence segment at a time.

Lets start with the first segment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”

This segment tells me – Congress (the House of Representatives and Senate) are prohibited from making a law that establishes a national religion.  Congress is also also forbidden from enacting any law which prohibits US Citizens from privately or publicly exercising any aspect of their religion.   This is pretty cut and dry and does not say a child cannot pray out loud in school, nor that a cross cannot be on government ground, nor that the Ten  Commandments must be removed from a government building.  I am not sure where our government feels they have the right to mandate these kind of restrictions.  Just look the amendment over again.  This segment of the First Amendment prohibits the restrictions being imposed on the any faith, including Christianity, in this country.

Now lets look at the second segment of the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …“

Notice I kept the “Congress Shall Make no Law” portion of the first segment at the beginning of the second segment, because congress is the entity being restricted by the entire sentence.   Again the House of Representatives and Senate are prohibited from making laws preventing the freedom of speech of US Citizens or freedom of journalists to investigate, gather and report honest, newsworthy information.  This segment in no way says people can say anything they want without repercussion.  This segment says citizens and journalists must not be restricted from honest, moral and responsible speech, but are not exempted from prosecution for immoral, untrue and/or irresponsible speech.  Many people in this country interpret the wording above to say people and journalist are able to say anything they want without repercussions.  I just don’t see how to derive  that interpretation by what is in the wording of this segment of the First Amendment.

Now lets look at the last segment of the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law … abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

Again notice I kept the “Congress Shall Make no Law” portion of the first segment at the beginning of the second segment, because congress is the entity being restricted by the entire sentence.  This segment of the First Amendment states simply the House of Representatives and Senate are prohibited from enacting any law restricting US Citizen’s the right to gather together peacefully or to petition the government to address grievance they have.  I don’t see where it authorizes people to assemble in a way that blocks of roadways, people from their homes, or to camp out in city parks and other areas where they defecate and urinate in public and make these public areas uninhabitable by the public for whom they were built.  The second amendment definitely does not allow people who gather to assault, sexually assault and rape other citizens.   Judges legislating from the bench may have read too much into the First Amendment and made a lot of stuff up as we went along.  Getting back to the basics our forefathers intended may be advantageous in the long run.

Should we put my interpretations of the First Amendment segments altogether?

Congress is prohibited from making any law that establishes a national religion. Congress must not prohibit any US Citizen from publicly or privately pursuing their religious beliefs. The government must not prevent the freedom of speech of US Citizens or the freedom of journalists to investigate, gather and report newsworthy information.  They also must not restrict any US Citizen’s right to gather together peacefully or to petition the government to address grievances they have.

Above is my three interpretations all strung together in one paragraph prohibiting congress from doing a lot of things they actually are doing today.  The personal interpretations of this amendment over the years as changed what people believe it really says.  Does anyone see the term “separation of church and state” in this amendment.  NO!!!  Well, where does that term come from?  Someone twisted it all around making it sound like the First Amendment was written to protect the government from the church instead of protecting the churches of our nation from the government.

Some say they found the “Separation of Church and State” in the Federalist Papers.  That actually isn’t true.  What actually occurred is a letter by Thomas Jefferson was found where he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 where a portion read,  “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”  They must have only read the last phrase of the paragraph to interpret this as needing to keep the church from influencing the state,  The reading of the entire paragraph makes it clear Thomas Jefferson was trying to explain that citizens should be careful to prevent the government from taking advantage of religion.  But they took a couple select words and put it together into “Separation of Church and State”  What Thomas Jefferson was warning the Danbury Baptist Association about was government trying to control religion as it is trying to do now.

Even when letters like these come up or even the Federalist Papers themselves say something, we have to remember that these papers were communications between the people collaborating on the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.  These give good insight on what the founding fathers were thinking prior to writing the final approved Constitution, but remember that they did put specific things in the final document that is signed (making them directive on our nation) and left other things out for a reason.  We need to keep in mind the Constitution is directive in nature and mandates what is correct, When the Constitution conflicts with the Federalist Papers and other letters, the Constitution wins.  

What does our nation do now?

This is really up to honest lawmakers, if there are any left.  I personally believe there should be a fairly large legal staff appointed by Congress to shakedown all of our newer amendments, executive orders, laws, court decisions and find the ones in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights and other Amendments.  Once conflicting documents are found, they need to be rescinded or rewritten by Congress to be in compliance with our constitution and other directive documents from our founding as a country.  Every effort should be made to keep needed potions of the documents, but remove or change only those things that directly conflict any directive document our founding fathers signed.  The earlier the signed document the more precedence it should have in the evaluation process.  Once fixed at the federal level, these changes must be sent to the states and require their actions to make the same review and make all necessary changes to come in compliance with the US constitution.

If you liked this blog, please take a look at my second amendment blog.