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

    "...In 1923 a minimum wage law which required an employer to pay a certain wage, regardless of the earning ability of the employee, was held to be unconstitutional under this [Fifth Amendment] provision, since it took private property for the public welfare in violation of this clause [known as the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment]. It was reversed in 1937 by the Supreme Court under the influence of New Deal policies" (Skousen 707); the Supreme Court decision was made on March 29, 1937 in West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish (Grossman).

    The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which was part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, was signed into law on October 24, 1938, setting minimum wages for most categories of workers (Grossman).

    On June 23, 2005, "...the Supreme Court ruled that the "public use" requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment permitted the City of New London to exercise its eminent domain power in taking property from homeowners and transferring it to another private owner as part of an economic development plan" ("Kelo V. City..."). In their dissenting vote on this case, Justice O'Connor, along with the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, stated that "the Court has 'effectively...delete[d] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment' and thereby 'refuse[d] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution'" ("Sens. Rand Paul...").

    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; 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."

    Summary: Americans have a right to a speedy trial, to a public trial, to be judged by an impartial jury, to be notified of the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime, to confront witnesses who will testify against them, to find witnesses who will testify in their favor, and to have a lawyer.

    Examples of how the Founders' original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

    "Pfc. Bradley Manning made headlines in 2010 when he was arrested for the leak of around 250,000 private documents concerning operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to the website WikiLeaks, known for its mission of transparency in government. Manning was arrested on May 26, 2010," and was held in pretrial confinement for 845 days, thereby violating Manning's right to a "speedy trial" (Bell).

HbAD0

    "In December 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA's dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president - and all future presidents - to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world [including American citizens], far from any battlefield" ("NDAA") "The controversial components of the bill can be broken down into two parts. The first questionable portion of the bill (section 1031) explicitly exempts U.S. citizens, and ... states that the government would be mandated to place into military custody: 'any suspected member of Al Qaeda or one of its allies connected to a plot against the United States or its allies.. [and] would otherwise extend to arrests on United States soil. The executive branch could issue a waiver and keep such a prisoner in the civilian system.' The second provision (section 1032), however, does not include an exemption for U.S. citizens, and would give the government "the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial" (Sexton).

    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."

    Summary: Americans, in a civil case, possess "...the right to have a jury just as in criminal cases (provided, of course, that the suit involves a sum of $20 of more)" and "...the right to have its facts 'as found' remain unmolested during the appeal process" (Skousen 710)

    Examples of how the Founders' original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

    In Tull v. United States, "...The United States (P) filed a civil suit against Tull (D) for discharging fill material into wetlands in violation of the Clean Water Act. P sought over $22 million and injunctive relief. The district court denied Tull's motion for a jury trial and entered judgment for P for $325,000. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of a jury trial and the Supreme Court granted cert" ("Tull V...").

    "Many modern courts use a legal theory known as the "complexity exception," whereby a judge may take a civil lawsuit out of the hands of a jury because the issues are supposedly too complicated for the jurors to understand. This is most common in patent disputes, which often involve complex scientific principles. But this is in direct contravention of the Seventh Amendment. What gives the government the authority to determine that something is too complicated for a jury to understand? ("Amendment VII...")

HbAD1

    EIGHTH AMENDMENT --

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

    Summary: This amendment protects Americans from excessive bail and fines and from cruel and unusual punishment.

    Examples of how the Founders' original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

    In 1910, in the case of Weems v. United States, the court overturned the conviction against Paul Weems, a U.S. officer, who was found guilty of falsifying a document and was cruelly and unusually punished with "a 15-year prison term, hard labor, lifetime surveillance, and loss of his civil rights" ("A Progressive...").

    In 1992, in Hudson v. McMillian, the U.S Supreme Court "...found a violation of the Eighth Amendment when prison officials punched and kicked a prisoner, leaving him with minor bruises, swelling of his face and mouth, and loose teeth." The Court held that a guard's use of force violates the Eighth Amendment when it is not applied "in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline" but instead is used to "maliciously and sadistically cause harm" ("Your Right...").

    NINTH AMENDMENT --

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

    Summary: This amendment says that "...any right not enumerated, or listed, in the Constitution is still retained by the people" ("9th...").

    Examples of how the Founders' original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

    "Who determines which unlisted rights are to be protected by the government? According to the 10th Amendment and Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution, this power is reserved to the States, not to the Courts. There is nowhere in the Constitution that says the Courts have the power to determine which rights not listed are to be protected. The Constitution does say that powers not given to the federal government are given to the States and since the power to determine which unlisted rights are to be protected is nowhere delegated to the Federal government, this right is therefore given to the States ("9th..."). In 1973, in the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision, the Supreme Court made all state laws banning abortions illegal. "The people of Texas had passed a law banning abortions. They believed that having an abortion should not be a protected right. The Supreme Court said otherwise, ignoring the 9th Amendment, and declared the law unconstitutional. So, a handful of judges defiantly overruled the vote of the people of Texas, and other states that also had anti-abortion rules" ("9th...").

    In the Declaration of Independence, it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..." ("The Declaration..."). Life is a God-given, unalienable right that springs from our humanity. Therefore, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion in Roe v. Wade, it denied and disparaged the fundamental right of the unborn to live their lives.

    TENTH AMENDMENT --

    "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."

    Summary: This Amendment states that "...the federal government only has powers over the things that are specifically given to it in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the States" or to the people ("The 10th...").

    Examples of how the Founders' original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

    "The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act" (Hansen).

    "In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer who grew wheat just for the consumption of his own family violated federal agricultural guidelines enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Though the wheat did not move across state lines-indeed, it never left his farm-the Court held that if other similarly situated farmers were permitted to do the same it, might have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce" (Napolitano).

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 is, at its core, unconstitutional. As a strategy, Congress used "The Commerce Clause" (Article I Section 8 Clause 3) of the Constitution to justify the regulation of the entire health care industry through this law - The Commerce Clause says that "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes." According to the Framers, to regulate something meant to keep it "regular," and, in the case of PPACA, this clause limits Congress to the regulation of interstate commerce between states (not to be confused with intrastate commerce, which is within state lines). With this in mind, consider the following: "The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one's health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century" (Napolitano).

    "In...Printz vs. United States, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress could not force the States to conduct criminal background checks on gun purchasers. This would have forced the state to use its own resources to accomplish the Federal mandate. This was also barred by the 10th Amendment" ("The 10th...").

    In conclusion, according to the preamble to the Bill of Rights, the Framers provided us with these ten amendments in order to insure public confidence in the government. Yet, as you have seen, all three branches of our national government have failed, on numerous occasions - certainly more numerous than the examples used above - to trample upon the rights of "We the People," which the Declaration of Independence says are unalienable and God-endowed. Good government possesses only the power derived from the consent of the governed so that it can fulfill its purpose in securing the rights and liberties of the people. But, more and more have seen and are seeing good government replaced by that which is oppressive and tyrannical. Why? Because "We the People" have allowed it. We have failed to be students of history and of current events and have relinquished our sovereign control of these United States by casting unwise votes for greedy and corrupt politicians who do not regard our Constitution or our freedoms. However, if we will pray, become extreme in our defense of liberty, work hard to educate our neighbors, and vote for adamant constitutionalists, America will be restored.

HbAD2

    Again, we MUST keep in mind the warning given to us by Thomas Jefferson: "I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

    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 - the Fifth Installment is here.

poll#135
Should the current Congress, under the care of the Democratic Socialists, have the right to pass new legislation - H.R. 1 - attempting to strip these 50 states united from managing their own elections?
  Yes, elections have consequences and the Democratic Socialists are now fully in charge.
  No, the partisan passing of H.R. 1, by only the Democratic Socialists, to create an illegitimate rich environment to corrupt elections and control the ballot box is fully unconstitutional.
  I just don't care.
497 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Go Back



Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Mental Health Advocates Support Return of Full-Time Classroom Instruction Local News & Expression, Editorials, Our Founding Principles, For Love of God and Country, Op-Ed & Politics Cooper Vetoes School Reopening Bill, Leading Lawmaker Cries Foul

HbAD3

 
Back to Top