A Re-Declaration of Independence - Second Installment | Eastern North Carolina Now

    As we should all know, the Constitution sets up three branches of government, with a checks and balances setup. In theory each of the three branches; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, should all have equal power and they should have the ability to stop the other from trampling the rights of the citizens and the principles set forth in the constitution. But Thomas Jefferson saw the Judicial branch of the government as the one branch that was capable of slowly changing those rights and enacting laws without the consent of the people. In fact it was he, the founder of the Democratic-Republican Party, who first attempted to impeach a US Supreme Court justice, Justice Samuel Chase. It was unsuccessful. Samuel Chase, a Federalist, vigorously and aggressively worked to enforce the highly unconstitutional Sedition Act, but only against Democratic-Republicans. He seemed to make it his mission to shut them up; he left an Federalist offender alone. Jefferson didn't believe a justice which such a flagrant discrimination against an opposing political party should sit on the bench and rule on national constitutional matters.

    Here are some of the wise words Jefferson wrote over the years warning of the tendency of the federal courts to become too powerful and destructive of the Constitution written in Philadelphia in 1787, signed by the delegates, and ratified, one by one, by each State:

    In his letter of September 11, 1804 to Abagail Adams, he wrote: "Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

    In his letter of August 18, 1821 to Charles Hammond, he wrote: "The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one."

    In his letter of October 23, 1823 to Monsieur A. Coray, he wrote: "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in a way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, little by little, the foundations of the Constitution, and working its change by construction before anyone has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

    In his letter of October 31, 1823 to Monsieur A. Coray, he wrote: "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that the invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is no made to be trusted for life, if secured against all inability to account."

    Compare what Thomas Jefferson wrote about the federal judiciary to what Abraham Lincoln warned in his First Inaugural Address: "...The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." -- from his First Inaugural Address (1861)

    For threatening to limit, prevent, require certification, and even tax American citizens in their ownership and enjoyment of firearms (and/or ammunition). Members of Congress are currently (as they have done in the past) planning to pass legislation to require persons to be licensed in order to purchase ammunition. Congress intends to tax ammunition (probably at a high rate) and probably guns as well. Certain magazines and firearm types will be excluded from Second Amendment protection, at Congress' discretion, of course. All of these are serious burdens on our right to gun ownership. Allowing Congress to interpret the Second Amendment on its own is perhaps the worst violation of our Second Amendment. Their stated goal is to destroy the NRA, an organization dedicated to keeping the Second Amendment alive and pertinent. We should all be well-aware that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms for self-protection and to ultimately, if necessary, stand up against a tyrannical government (foe the purposes of protecting our Natural and God-given rights. The US Supreme Court acknowledged such in the cases District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and in McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was violations of such a right in England that caused the people to ultimately begin the movement to minimize the role of the monarch (which ended in 1688 with the ascension to the throne by William and Mary, with Parliament's blessing) and it was King George's orders to seize the colonists' guns and ammunition that finally led to the first shots of our American Revolution. Such a violation can never be tolerated. We owe this to our children, our grandchildren, and future generations, but mostly we owe this to our Founders, our forefathers, and all those who fought for this right to bear arms. As Samuel Adams wrote: "Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. - Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom. It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event."


    For US presidents attempting to add additional "rights" that Americans are entitled to without going through the proper and legal process of amending the US Constitution according to Article V. A perfect example is the effort by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add additional rights belonging to Americans, particularly minorities and those living at or below the poverty level.

    In his Inaugural Address on January 11, 1944,, Franklin D. Roosevelt explained that economic inequality is a precursor to Fascism and that the influence of Soviet Communism is something the United States should fear. Consequently, he urged in strong terms that a "Second Bill of Rights" be adopted as a hedge against communism spreading to our shores. In that speech, he said:

    "This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights-among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty."

    As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however-as our industrial economy expanded-these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

    We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

    In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

    Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

    All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. "For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."

    Roosevelt did not argue that the Constitution should be amended to include the "Second Bill of Rights." But he did believe that social and economic rights ought to be seen as a defining part of our political culture, closely akin to the Declaration of Independence -- a place to look for our deepest commitments. I imagine he believed such "social and economic rights" fall under the provision in the Constitution known as the "General Welfare Clause."


    Roosevelt died in office before the war ended. His successor, Harry S. Truman, tried to carry forward his economic and civil rights initiatives with the "Fair Deal," but Congress blocked nearly all of his proposed legislation. Imagine how history (and the Second Bill of Rights) would have played out had Roosevelt lived and used his force of will to push his plan through Congress.

    The fact is that FDR's progressive vision has endured. Many progressives over the years have drawn directly from Roosevelt's vision of freedom and security. Indeed, his Second Bill of Rights is striking for its political boldness, but its ideas and proposals may have had their clearest articulation three years earlier when he delivered his famous "Four Freedoms" speech. In it he says, "The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are: (1) Equality of opportunity for youth and for others; (2) Jobs for those who can work; (3) Security for those who need it; (4) The ending of special privilege for the few; (5) The preservation of civil liberties for all; and (6) The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

    The problems are many-fold: First, such a proposal would by-pass the legal and legitimate process of adding additional human rights (which is outlined in Article V of the US Constitution). Second, a "Second Bill of Rights" (additional social and economic rights) would give Congress greater ability to legislate and control the country's population. Third, it would greatly expand our entitlement culture; there would be a consequential expansion of entitlements, largely funded and managed by the federal government. Fourth, it would give Congress the excuse to increase its reliance on THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE as a separate grant of power in Article I, Section 8. Fifth, such promises and language by the country's president would tend to confuse the American people as to which objects are legitimate "rights" and even legitimate "civil rights." Most Americans already haven't read the Constitution or Declaration of Independence and are ignorant of our country's history. And sixth, a Second Bill of Rights serves to relieve Americans from personal responsibility and to rely increasingly on the federal government.


    For accepting fraudulent election results, even though there was an abundance of compelling evidence that the election was intentionally rigged through massive election tampering, election fraud, and election irregularities, thereby nullifying and ignoring the voice of too many decent, patriotic, law-abiding, and hard-working citizens, "One Person, One Vote." according to the Constitutional principle (grounded in the 14th Amendment, if you believe it is even a legitimate amendment, but certainly grounded in our notion of equality and in our very right as an American citizen). Every citizen is guaranteed, by right and by the Constitution, to have an equal vote and thus an equal voice in the government that passes laws and enacts policies that affect our lives, property, and fortunes. While our Founders established our country as a republic (for very good reason), there is a very important democratic element, which is the ability of every citizen to vote and thereby have a voice in their government. Mike Huckabee noted: "A fraudulent vote is a stolen vote. It steals a vote from the thin air and nullifies the legal and legitimate vote of a tax-paying citizen, whose rights to a fair election shouldn't be tampered with. Winning an election is important, but winning it honestly is imperative in a Constitutional Republic."

    For the US Supreme Court ignoring its obligation under Article III, Section 2, clauses 1 and 2 regarding "original jurisdiction." Article III, Section 2, clauses 1 and 2 read: (1) "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. (2) In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Being that the Constitution provides this as the only forum for an identified party's day in court, to deny a hearing to one constitutionally assigned to the Court is akin to denying such party its right to justice. Some recent examples include its refusal to hear the Pennsylvania and Texas cases challenging the certification of the state presidential election results (even though the high Court held that the case was filed a bit late, the gravity of the allegations should have encouraged the members of the Court to find an excuse to hear it. After all, at hear is the People's rightful expectation of honest and transparent election results. And to be honest, the sheer number of election tampering, election fraud, and election irregularities was mind-blowing and rightfully caused the people to lose faith in the election system and to believe the election was rigged.

    Diane's "Magnus Opus" will continue by breaking this fine work into ongoing excerpts, which can be found in excerpt form here in volumes. Stay tuned and know that more of Diane Rufino's "A Re-Declaration of Independence" is on the way to a BCN near you.

poll#132

Considering that Joe Biden is considered by so many to be the Imposter President: Is he actually knowledgeable enough, wise enough, patriotic enough to be this Constitutional Republic's president at this difficult point in these tumultuous times?

  Yes, Mr. Biden is thoughtful and kind, and just so different from the "Orange Man".

  No, this representation of "president" is either too corrupt, too stupid, or both to be a real president.

  I just want the fun guy, who knew how to make stuff work back.

670 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?