Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer, as well as the print version of The County Compass.
For years I shied away from this. I thought everyone knew it. I assumed bringing it up would only show how shallow I am. After all, we are all Americans and knowing it should be like a genetic appendage. Bringing it up would be as personal a discussing the shape of one's nose or their lips or eyes.
The "it" I am referring to is the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to of the Constitution of the United States of America. These ten amendments are personal, applying to each of us as individuals. Reference to these ten amendments is frequently made by those encountering conflicts with the law all the way from the city hall to the federal government. This powerful reference is always the same, "I have rights".
Too many of us tend to discount the full meaning of the "I have rights" statement. The statement applies equally to both the guilty and the innocent. Whether guilty or innocent, the person will be tried and punished according their rights as set out in the Bill of Rights. Some countries take all rights away upon just the accusation of guilt.
My judgement that everyone is knowledgeable of the Bill of Rights was very wrong. Nothing brings this to light more than to see how elected officials at all levels vote and make decisions in our behalf.
I attended the Beaufort Tea Party's Sheriff candidates' presentations last week. Answers to the question of whether or not the sheriff would assist in the confiscation of guns from private owners was astounding. All candidates had more than 15 years in law enforcement. Only two candidates gave answers that indicated a knowledge of our inalienable rights in the Second Amendment of our Constitution. Other candidates thought their job would be to enforce the law. They obviously did not know where the law comes from. They never considered the requirement for a Constitutional Convention or other means described in the Constitution in order to overturn the Second Amendment. Neither the President nor the Courts or Congress can legally order the confiscation of guns. Two candidates said that if there were no other way to avoid confiscation of guns they would resign from office.
Liberals over the years have tried to lead us away from the constitution by saying it is outdated and intended to be a living document. There are a lot of federal laws that are unconstitutional. Federal mandates for welfare, Obamacare, Federal control of education, the NDAA etc, etc. are not constitutional. The reason is clearly stated in the 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."
A common misunderstanding about he US Constitution is that it is at the top of a chain of (legal) command. That is, the US Constitution over-rules all other law. That is not how it was intended to work. The US Constitution describes how the Federal Government works. The Bill of Rights restricts to Federal Government from infringing our inalienable, God-given rights. The Federal Government was intended to be an entirely separate government from each state government and with specific, limited powers. Each state has a constitution of its own which cannot conflict with the Federal Constitution. State constitutions are independent and not linked to the Federal Constitution. There are provisions built into the Federal Constitution that protect the States from any change unless a super majority of the states - not the President or Congress--approve. The weakening of the Federal Constitution has happened during the past 100 years because our Federal Congress along with our Presidents - of both parties--failed to understand, much less honor, the principles of the separation of Federal and State powers.
For example, the North Carolina Constitution creates, empowers and regulates county, city and the various other legal entities (for-profit and non-profit corporations, the education systems, etc). There is no granting of powers or permissions from Federal to State Governments. The reverse is the case with the Federal Government usurping controls on health care, education, narcotics, abortion, etc. All of these belong exclusively to the individual states simply because they are not defined as being a part of the Federal Government in the US Constitution.
Do not buy into the argument that the War Between the States established the Federal Constitution as being superior to the State Constitution and that the Feds can do anything they want. All the southern states' constitutions were rewritten within the frame work of their original constitutions without linkage to the Federal Constitution. None of the Northern States had their constitutions rewritten. The original Federal Constitution was preserved.
Sure there are general statements within the US Constitution about interstate commerce and the "general welfare". These phrases are preamble type statements and were never intended to be all inclusive. The proof of this lies in the Tenth Amendment. The founders never intended for us to have the Federal Government we have today.
So welfare, Obamacare, Federal control of education etc, etc are not constitutional. Can the individual states have these? The answer is yes based on the powers given to the state in that individual state's constitution. The majority of the Supreme Court Justices do not understand this simple concept in the law. It is no wonder a lot of people are thoroughly confused about our constitutional rights. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts showed his ignorance of the Constitution when he cast the deciding vote to declare Obamacare a tax under the mistaken belief that the Federal Government can impose any kind of tax it desires on citizens within the states. Common sense would say that Congress has no authority to levy a tax for anything not specifically delegated to the Federal Government. The Constitution provides for a tax on income not a health care tax.
Most of us have been led to believe that we should leave the Constitution to "Constitutional Scholars". Nothing could be further than the truth. The writers of the Constitution took great care to use as simple language as they could in crafting this important document. The reason was so the common man could understand it. Every American citizen, by right, is entitled to read and comment on the meaning of the Constitution. And every elected official who takes an oath to support and defend that Constitution is morally bound to know, understand and uphold that Constitution. This is the document that binds us together. This document does not run on for thousands and thousands of pages. The defining indictment of how corrupt our government and society have become lies in those laws that run on for hundreds and thousand of pages. We do not need those laws and programs that cannot be simply stated in less than a few pages.
You as a citizen do not have to defer to the judgement of so called constitutional experts. The Constitution says what it means and means what it says. You are entitled to read the constitution and form interpret what the plain meaning of the words is. You, the citizen, are as expert as anyone else. As always you may need to read some history in order to understand the important events of the day at the time the Constitution was written. I am suspicious of those who are hoisted to the level of constitutional expert simply because the Justices of the Supreme Court have made so many mistakes in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution.
I have noticed that those leaders who have been most destructive to our form of government and the American peoples' rights have been presented as experts in the Constitution, Constitutional scholars, Constitutional Lawyers, etc. Some of those that come to mind are presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Barak Obama, and Abraham Lincoln. Obama's only claim to legal fame is to have "taught Constitutional Law" and Lincoln was supposed have "read law". Roosevelt practiced corporate law. All of these men are supposed to know the constitutional law. They subverted and abused the Constitution at every opportunity.
Our duties as citizens are few and simple. One duty is to vote. We as citizens should have read the Constitution and amendments. Copies of the state and federal constitutions can be obtained from the internet or your local library. They can even be downloaded to your smart phone. Everyone should participate in democracy in some way and reading the state and federal constitutions is the least we can do. A good way to become well informed is to read these documents three times over a week's period of time. Your understanding will have grown considerably. Do not try to memorize these documents. Make this casual entertainment and you will learn a lot.
No person should graduate from high school without having an understanding of both the state and federal constitutions and they should have passed at least one test on our state and national constitutions.
Everyone in a constitutional democracy should be aware that farming out the protection of our rights to elected officials has not worked. The only protection we will obtain from our constitution is to the degree we are willing to demand that our elected officials conform to the meaning of both the federal and state constitutions.
Every citizen can apply one sure fire test to every elected official. Do not be embarrassed to ask this question: "Have you examined this issue in light of the requirements of the United States and the State of North Carolina's Constitutions"? Be ready to be surprised, because the elected official will be surprised. Do not vote for those who tell you: "Neither of the constitutions apply to this situation." It is not impolite to ask elected officials "when is the last time you read the constitutions?" If you have read these documents and you observe the elected official for a while you will know whether or not he is telling you the truth and whether or not he has knowledge of these constitutions.
