Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (3 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   8 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Another Fine Mess: Our Disappearing Rights

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 4   Well Said 3   Valuable 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 9/21/13

Become a Fan
  (3 fans)
- Advertisement -

5) From our Sixth Amendment, re: our rights in criminal prosecutions, the essential word "Counsel" (as in, "to have the assistance of Counsel") was used in the 1788 proposal, but not in the 1776 Declaration.

6) From the Seventh Amendment, re: trial by jury, the newer 1788 proposal declares it to be a citizen right (no outright statement that it is a "right" in the 1776 Declaration).

Also from an amateur perspective, let me point out some differences in language between the 1776 Declaration (composed within the first year or so of the American Revolution) to language used after the lessons learned from the Revolution.   As I previously mentioned, our current Third Amendment was not even mentioned in any degree in the earlier Declaration, and it was likely as a result of the war on our own soil that caused our progenitors to contemplate such a provision.

Additionally--and this is a big issue today--from our Second Amendment, the phrase (which is offset by commas and reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms") that gets everyone stirred up was exclusive to the composition of the 1788 proposal after the experience of the Revolution.   It was rendered by the Virginia ratification convention thusly, in 1788:   "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms;"--note the semi-colon--"that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence ( sic ) of a free State.   That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power."   In the 1776 Declaration, during the first months of the war, the phrases "well regulated militia" and "safe defence ( sic ) of a free state" was the main terminology.   Again, the experience of the war indicated the importance of these changes and additions.

Conclusion:   The experts here (meaning those contributing to the article from the National Archives) hold back the details that help us understand the true source of many of the key words that exist in the Bill of Rights.   The Library of Congress website was not much help in understanding the true source, either, but at least they had links to the 1788 Virginia proposals.   What Madison obviously drew from the newer document became what is best known today to be associated with the Bill of Rights.   The omission or misrepresentation from the National Archives and Records Administration and the Library of Congress is at a minimum a significant oversight, and at worst a purposeful attempt at re-writing our early history.

Expert opinion (B):   Source--Former Senator Richard Lugar, Former Representative Mike Pence (currently governor of Indiana), Assertion--"Bloggers" probably would not be considered journalists, and only bloggers actually engaged in gathering news would be considered journalists, respectively, under the then-proposed Free Flow of Information Act.

Amateur opinion:   The 1788 Virginia proposal stated it in this language:  "That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their Sentiments;"--again, note the semi-colon--"but the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and ought not to be violated."   Both sources of news and opinion were intended to be protected, but the big difference from today is that the press used to be for guarding our interests, whereas now it consists of huge corporate-controlled entities; the only intense interest they take in us is getting our money (through advertisements, subscriptions, etc.) and in promulgating the propaganda of corporate/government elites.   More than ever, it is up to the people to publish opinions, news, and facts to give us back that independent, truthful reporting that previous generations enjoyed.   We need to hang on to that right with both hands, using any means at our disposal.   To try to take this right away from us is just another attempt to keep us under control. 

Expert opinion (C):   Source--Various corporate media and product production companies, Assertion--Their copyrights and patents are subject to long holding times and renewals by acts of Congress.

- Advertisement -

Amateur opinion:   During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a committee was created to address the language and style of the Constitution.   Though good for brevity, some of the original intent was lost in the process.   A good example is some of the language of the first Article, eighth section, of the Constitution, namely, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."   Originally, the language was recorded in two separate parts/paragraphs: "to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time" and "to secure to the inventors of useful machines and implements the benefits thereof for a limited time."   The word 'time' was in the singular in the original language and was only made plural after the phrases were joined together in the same section by the Committee of Style (to indicate two types of individuals to be protected, authors and inventors).   The practice of extending copyrights and patents was never an intended privilege of Congress, but has been taken as such because of attempts to be brief in expression.   The intent was that things would fall into the public domain much sooner than has been practiced, but because billions of dollars are at stake in such matters, these things are desired by the elite to remain either unknown to the people or totally disbelieved.  


Constitution flag flying at author's home by Steve Osborn

Defending the Constitution of the United States

A few years back I had the opportunity to hear a federal DC Circuit judge give an address in front of a small group of people before opening the floor for questions.  At the time, Bush II was going crazy with "Signing Statements" asserting that the US would not enforce certain things that he (Bush) objected to, thus basically creating his own line-item veto.  I recited a portion of the citizenship oath to the judge for newly naturalized citizens, "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and posited that since new citizens had to take this oath, that it follows that the oath must inure to all natural-born citizens when they are born.   Therefore, since we have a citizen obligation to defend the Constitution, would not that give us sufficient legal "standing" to challenge things like Bush's Signing Statements (i.e. in a court of law)?   He immediately answered, "No," but then went silent for a few seconds, just staring at me (as though the thought-wheels were turning), and then he said, "But that's interesting."

From a strictly amateur perspective, we have a duty to defend the Constitution just as much as any elected official, soldier, law enforcement person, or other individual so-swears to do.   It is time we started insisting that our legislators start both following the Constitution and actively working at their checks-and-balances responsibilities to rein in the abuses of the Executive Branch.
 

- Advertisement -

A word about Martial Law

Rumors are repeating that we are about to be saddled with martial law from some catastrophic event soon to hit.   Again, let me take the amateur position about this.   The Constitution makes no provisions for suspending itself.   Congress cannot do it, the president cannot, the military cannot, and the judiciary cannot.   It also has no provisions for anyone to enact martial law.   The Constitution contains some components of martial law, but with restrictions of their use.   The military, for instance, can assist in enforcing existing law; it is not a law unto itself.   A military leader cannot legally (under the Constitution) declare that such-and-such are now laws and that anyone breaking such declarations will be held accountable to the military; it just is not provided for in the Constitution.

For anyone concerned about Romans 13 in the Bible, just remember that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land; not the military, not the president, not Congress, etc.   Religious leaders that may have undergone training to the contrary by government agencies should prepare to defend the Constitution, at least by refusing to be involved in anything that remotely takes away the rights of the people.   True, when staring down the barrel of a Howitzer, it may be difficult to remember the Constitution; but if there is truly strength in numbers in such a situation, then remember that you at least have the Constitution on your side, and thousands of American lives have been lost defending those freedoms with all that they had to give.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

Steve Osborn has worked in technical areas of the wireless industry for over 30 years and is a past congressional candidate. He began personal research in 1980 of American political assassinations, and testified to the Assassinations Records Review (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Another Fine Mess: Our Disappearing Rights

Another Fine Mess: Conspiracy Theory or Deep Politics?

Obama-First Oval Office Meeting, Cuba and JFK

Global Intelligence Operatives Thank You for Your Support!

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 people are discussing this page, with 8 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

As you read this article, you may wonder if I was... by Steve Osborn on Saturday, Sep 21, 2013 at 7:51:11 PM
I enjoyed your article. I think the Bill of Rights... by Mark Whittington on Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:50:57 AM
The entire point of the false flag event of 9/11 w... by 911TRUTH on Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 at 11:20:24 AM
Thanks for your comment and, if I understand it co... by Steve Osborn on Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 at 2:38:11 PM
Very well said and valuable.  Madison also dr... by Mark Adams JD/MBA on Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 at 1:26:55 PM
There were other states that included with their ... by Steve Osborn on Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:03:07 PM
Try defending the Constitution and be labeled a tr... by John Shriver on Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:39:20 PM
We should become informed about who is actually d... by Steve Osborn on Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:53:32 PM