The Ill of Rights

I recently discovered that every single copy of the Constitution that I’ve ever owned is incomplete. There’s a part that’s consistently cut out, without explanation. I’ve not investigated why that’s so, but that’s where we are.

What is the missing part? The Preamble of the Bill of Rights. Yes, boys and girls, the Bill of Rights has a preamble, and it says some interesting things. It states plainly that the purpose of the first ten Amendments is to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Constitution's] powers”. Because the concern was real, people desired “that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”.

I would remind that when we speak of “our constitutional rights”, we perpetuate a falsehood that benefits those hostile to freedom. The Constitution grants no rights to people other than the ability to vote and run for federal office. The other rights exist independent of the Constitution; we have them because of our nature as human beings. These are the “Natural Rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence that cannot be given away, taken away, or otherwise “alienated”. (Look in a good law dictionary such as Black’s Law Dictionary to see what alienation means.)

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes reminds us that the Constitution grants the Federal government limited powers. The first ten Amendments exist “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse” of those limited powers.

So, for everybody’s enjoyment, here is the complete “Bill of Rights” as ratified on December 15, 1791. (Source: Skousen, W. Cleon, The Making of America.)

STGM

Edit:

The national archives web site includes the preamble here.

---

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth 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 misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 offence 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.

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 defence.

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.

Amendment VIII

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

Amendment IX

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

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.

Gimme Gimme

A guest article courtesy of STGM.

---

The idea of subjecting benevolent totalitarianism to a critical eye has caused a stir in Utah. A bill that would allow government facilities to be subject to scrutiny when they interfere with free markets has evoked fear in the hearts of the supporters of tyranny.

Since most people don’t realize they support tyranny when it has a pleasant face, they become puzzled and ask “why?” One person puzzled, “My taxes paid to build it, why should they now sell that to a private company if they are found to be competing unfairly“?

The shortest answer is, “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

This same person assumed that she’d pay more, which was a Bad Thing. It’s easy to encounter this type of language. It’s typical of people who have been trained by the government since their earliest years to accept without thought the equation “Government=Good”.

This tempest in a teapot provides an opportunity to examine the thought process that drive this type of language.

Of particular note, is how people’s words are typically focused on dollars and things at the expense of other people. This is the philosophical underpinnings of socialism and fascism. Things have value. Other people are only a resource to be used in acquiring things for your personal benefit.

We have been taught over generations in government schools to abhor freedom and embrace stealing from each other as long as we are promised a goodie in return. In other words, we value things and use people for our personal gain. We think things and money have power, when in reality they are dust. It’s human life that is the source of value.

This mindset is wholly immoral and completely indefensible but as long as we think that way, we (1) support it daily and (2) vigorously defend it in a knee-jerk fashion when we perceive personal benefit. We support any strongman who promises more goodies, but the goodies can only come through force and deception. We fear anything that challenges our inverted perception of good as bad, bad as good. Though our bodies may have grown to maturity, we desire to remain dependent children.

The opposite philosophy, which is the only defensibly moral system (and which the Founders of the United States based their grand “experiment” on) rests on valuing people, using things, and freely exchanging with others without coercion or deception.

Scarcity and fear drives the first mindset. The second mindset is rooted in abundance and joy. The first mindset fears the second mindset.

But… people largely don’t care. Thinking is too hard. Doing the right thing means work. They only want the illusion of “their” stuff… at your expense.

It brings to mind an obscure song from days gone by. “Who can fight the beast? She’s big, she’s bad, she’s wicked, she’s sad. Who can fight the beast?” (“The Beast”, 666: The Apocalypse of John 13/18, Aphrodite’s Child, 1971).

Please Do Not Yank the Chain

In this article, Learning Arabic Is Controversial?, I’m assuming that the author just misses the point. He states “to single out a language program simply because of someone’s ethnicity or interest in language development” is a bad thing. Well, if that were the cause of the trouble, he would be right.

The author attempts to further establish his case by stating, “No one got this bent out of shape when I was taught BASIC in middle school.” I don’t recall any international trouble over BASIC programmers trying to kill people, either. Since the original proposition was faulty to start with, it’s no surprise that equating a programming language with a violent ideology comes across as incredulous.

According to the article to which he was responding, the brouhaha was not really over ethnicity or interests in linguistics.

I grew up during the Cold War. Since my late teens I’ve been the furthest from having socialist sympathies precisely because I’ve read Marx, Lennin, Hitler, etc. I could argue Das Kapital with the local self-proclamed commies on my university campus. (At least the ones that had the capacity to operate beyond raw dogmatism.)

However, regardless of a person’s attitude toward totalitarianism, the fact that I was interested in the Russian language and people by and large garnered respect. Anecdote from other Russian-speaking people I’ve met during those years corroborated my experience.

I suspect that the same is true today for serious students of Arabic and Farsi.

So, what did get people’s hackles up? Rubbing things associated with communism in people’s face.

What gets people’s hackles up these days? Rubbing things associated with radical jihadist Islam in people’s face.

If during my days a school were opened for the purpose of teaching “Russian and Russian culture”, it would have raised eyebrows. That’s perfectly understandable. Handled smartly, it could have been quite successful.

If a Russian immigrant were the principal, and said principal yanked the public’s chain by defending loaded words on T-shirts, and engaging in other thinly-disguised political rhetoric, there would have been a lot of justifiable tensions. Being a representative of the school, the image of the whole school would naturally have been severely damaged.

This does not constitute bigotry on the part of the public. Knowingly rubbing offensive things in people’s faces doesn’t fall under the category of “kind” or “courteous”. It’s called yanking their chains.

Are Things Different Today?

During the Cold War, people in the public eye tended to be discrete and indirect about their pro-communist opinions.

Where culture differs today from then, there exist those in prominent media and political positions who openly express their hatred for the United States. Part of their rhetoric involves glorifying those who would like to see us dead. It seems that their mentality is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. In other words, anybody who hates America they see as a fellow traveller, if not an ally.

This causes the average American to become uncomfortable. Do people therefore hate all things Middle Eastern? Certainly not. However, when somebody yanks their chain, there will be a reaction. With repeated yanking, people tend to become resentful of the yankers and those they associate themselves with. To point out that tension exists should elicit the “Well, Duh!” response.

If Almontaser was not intelligent enough to know that “intifada” doesn’t have explicit political meaning, she should not be the principal. I assume that she’s not so foolish. Therefore I would assume that she’s toying with people. That’s not appropriate behavior either way given the fact that there are many people who have legitimate concerns over the expansion of radicalized Islam.

People have legitimate concerns about the establishment of something that could become a radical madrassa. Anybody who wants to establish a school public or private that has an emphasis on Middle Eastern language and culture must know this, and will have to take care to avoid any appearance that could cause antagonism.

It’s too bad that the principal they hired was not on the same page, because now the school has a public relations problem, and people who have enrolled in the school face suspicion.

Would You Like Some Cheese with That Whine?

We can whine and cry about these things being “unfair”, or we can grow up and be accountable for our decisions.

The article states that “The verbal attacks caused Colon to pull her son out of the school.” It further quotes others whining about negative reactions. Yes, there are always those who think you stink, and will raise a stink to let others know their opinion. Nay-sayers have existed since the earliest times. However, to lump those who have legitimate concerns with the stinkers isn’t appropriate either.

Colon chose to withdraw her son rather than stand up boldly for her decision. We have no idea whether she did anything to provoke others, and I assume she didn’t. Regardless, there is no shame in stating, “I preferred reduced trouble with my associates over my boy attending that school”. It’s a legitimate personal decision. So would be putting up with the criticism until it died down. Neither decision is inherently better than the other.

I wish the school the best, and hope that they carefully screen their employees to ensure that they have brains and are on the same page as the founders.

One has to be smart about these things and not yank the chains of your potential customers in a free market.

STGM

---

Personal note: Please don’t send me long strings of Russian. I’ve unfortunately let my skill go, and can’t say much more these days than «Я не потамаю по–русски!»

Ron Paul: King of the Blind?

In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Many people (mostly Ron Paul supporters) have asked me, repeatedly, of my opinion of Ron Paul. Admittedly I’ve been somewhat coy in answering. Here I’ll give a brief answer, perhaps more later if there are still people who willingly will communicate with me. I mean, directly and not through their lawyers.

To me, Ron Paul represents the most frustrating of candidates. He’s very intelligent. He’s well-read. He loves America. He’s a bold proponent of many solid, principled ideas that the Founders discovered and used to forge a new nation unlike anything the world has ever seen. He deserves to be proud of his nickname, “Dr. No” during his years in Congress: he’s often the lone voice for the individual. For somebody who shares a similar love of America and freedom, what’s not to love?

Wisdom, or the apparent lack thereof. I can’t get past the apparent lack of ability to rationally apply principles to the real world.

When it comes to domestic policies, the Founders wrote much and their ideas for the most part have endured time. Contrary to those who despise individual liberty, times have not changed. We are humans with the same tendencies as those two hundred years ago. Technology has not altered our nature.

Couple this with a country that has strayed so far from its roots, it takes little intellectual firepower to apply what the Founders intended. “No, the Constitution does not grant the federal government that authority” is the correct response to almost every action that Congress wishes to take.

Before saying anything, I’ve been reading and watching everything that I can find produced by Dr. Paul. From what I can tell, he has a good overall grasp of all things domestic.

For example, when it comes to the topic of marriage, Dr. Paul stands as an exception to every pundit that I’ve encountered — Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, etc. He points out in Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny that the Constitution already gives Congress the tools it needs to keep marriage within the purview of the States. The Constitution grants Congress a check against the federal courts: Congress dictates to the courts which cases it may hear. It thereby may keep the federal courts from meddling in State affairs. (I recommend the article regardless of whether you like or agree with his assessments.)

When it comes to foreign affairs, the writings of the Founders is thinner, and their actions mixed. Here Dr. Paul displays gross naïvité and ignorance, which produces inconsistency and a lack of the deep insight I would expect of somebody seeking the presidency. To be fair, the other candidates aren’t rooted in solid philosophy either. However, for somebody so well-read and passionate about the Constitution, he utterly fails to be persuasive, let alone rational.

Don’t misunderstand. Some things are clearly not authorized by the Constitution, such as extracting money from Americans by force and handing it out to every petty dictator whom the State Department thinks it can influence with cash. Here Dr. Paul is dead on.

However, when it comes to other matters, it appears that he has utterly failed to take into account the realities of history and human behavior. Instead, he tries to use the same naïve cookie-cutter approach to foreign policy and trade.

To me, the greatest contributor to this impression is his inability to present a persuasive argument on these matters. I have difficulty accepting his propositions because many of his assertions start with (1) conclusions (instead of premises), (2) misinformation or (3) logical fallacies, and build upon these. It’s easy to knock over his assertions since his starting points are weak. Regrettably, at times I can’t tell if I’m listening to a patriot or the Daily Kos.

After I analyze his messages on these matters, I’m left with the impression that Ron Paul not only represents “hope for America”, but also her enemies. Faced with another Hitler, at this point it appears that a President Ron Paul would be another Neville Chamberlain.

Maybe There’s Hope

I have ordered but not received Dr. Paul’s book on foreign policy (A Foreign Policy of Freedom), in which I hope he has expounded on this subject with clarity absent from the primary source material that I’ve been able to extract from the Internet.

STGM