NO MORE BS: Defining a Patriot

Theres moreSome people have criticized me for not speaking like a psychologist.  By profession, choice, and a lot of work and experience, I am an Industrial and Organizational Psychologist (I/O Psych).  An I/O Psych collaborates with people to improve systems, organizations, and the processes that naturally occur when you put a bunch of people working together on a task in the same room.  I do not charge people $500 an hour to listen to them and offer platitudes.  By this comment, I am not dismissing, denigrating, or deriding my fellow practitioners; I am merely drawing a distinction.  My education, experiences, or talents do not make a patriot; my choices do!

The First Amendment of the U. S. Bill of Rights states:

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.

Notice the stress placed upon peacefully assembling.  I do not care about your grievances, but, as long as you protest peacefully, do not block commerce, traffic, or allow emotions to cross over into violence, I will fight to the death your right to peacefully assemble.  The same is true of expressing speech; you can speak like a blathering idiot, and I will fight to the death for your right to be the blathering idiot and only expect that you respect my freedoms of speech and fight to help me maintain those rights.  I do not care what god, gods, or God you worship, even if you refuse to worship a god, gods, or God.  I will fight to the death your right to believe as you choose, provided you respect my rights to worship as I choose; this includes not waging lawfare to change religious expressions in society.  Peacefully allowing religious displays does not intrude, hurt, or even influence you, so please stop wasting community resources as you practice lawfare.

The Duty of AmericansThe Second Amendment of the U. S. Bill of Rights states:

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.”

People who own weapons legally, per the codified laws of the 50-states, are not terrorists, hell-bent on capturing the world; cease criminalizing the ownership of firearms!  Emotion has overcome reason, logic, and common sense on this issue. The tools of policy (law enforcement) should not be made the bad guy because a political figure is demonizing legal gun owners.  If you want to stop crime, reduce gun-related violence, and improve society’s safety, arm the citizens, don’t demonize them!

Washington at Valley ForgeThe Third Amendment of the U. S. Bill of Rights states:

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.”

Some people will erroneously think this is not that big of an amendment; I beg to differ.  America is a Country of law!  How grateful we all should be that the government cannot lodge soldiers in our homes in peace or war without law properly ascribed.  Now, I am not claiming that all laws are good or bad, merely stating that there is a law, and the laws can keep us free.

ScalesThe Fourth Amendment of the U. S. Bill of Rights states:

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.

The Fourth Amendment has been beaten and bloodied but remains a crucial and vital aspect of constitutional law in protecting citizens from the government.  However, legislation continues to be passed that infringes upon this amendment.  The FISA courts are a perfect example of unconstitutional legislation being allowed to thrive, based solely upon the excuse, “National Security.”  The cogent points of the laws allowing this abuse of constitutional rights are found in Charles Reich’s (1943) writings, specifically since the early 1930s in America, the citizens have been seen as the property of the Federal Government and the bureaucratic lackey’s!  As Americans, if we are to remain safe and secure in our homes from illegal government overreach, the Fourth Amendment needs to be strengthened!  As a patriot, I will fight to the death for your right to be safe in your home from illegal government search and seizure, for if you lose your rights to safety in your home today, I will surely lose my rights tomorrow.

President AdamsThe Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Bill of Rights states:

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.”

The Fifth Amendment continues to be bloodied and badgered by the liberal leftists who seized the government, regardless of their stated political party!  Consider how the FISA Court warrants were abused to obtain support for false accusations before President Trump took office.  Yet, put the same liberal leftists on trial, and they will scream their rights under the fourth and fifth amendments are being infringed.  As a patriot, I will fight to the death for your right to be safe from illegal government overreach, for a jury trial, and to protect your rights to life, liberty, and property.  If you lose your rights today, I will surely lose my rights tomorrow.

Pride 2The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights states:

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.”

Over the last four years, the legal-political theater has been a constant reminder of the Sixth Amendment’s importance.  How many people were arrested, charged, then waiting for a year or more while the political drama played out, and the accused were innocent of any crime; too many!  The importance of a speedy trial is understood in the phrase, “make charges appear against them.”  Too often, where politics and law merge, this phrase is being used, the law abused, and the political gamesmanship is disgusting!  Consider General Flynn; he was innocent, lost his job, and had to fight a multiple-year battle to clear his name, all because the liberal leftists “made charges appear against him.”  Due process of law is fundamentally enshrined in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Every time the government overreaches and abuses these amendments, real people suffer, and chaos in the law ensues!  Why does chaos ensue; well, there is another legal axiom at work, “Bad cases make bad case law!”  Essentially, when a judge issues an order, this creates the opportunity for another lawyer to use that case law as an example to stretch the envelope just a little bit further.

RememberFor example, eminent domain, June 2005 – Eminent Domain, Kelo v. City of New London by a 5-4 majority, affirmed the city’s right to seize private land as part of an economic development plan—a redefinition of the “Takings Clause” under the Fifth Amendment.  The U.S. Constitution clearly states that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    • Until this decision, the Eminent Domain and Taking Clause had been strictly and rigidly defined. Five judges who believe in judicial activism opened this “Pandora’s Box,” and the havoc has been nonstop ever since.
    • What was in this legal “Pandora’s Box;” before Kelo, eminent domain had been limited to direct government ownership, excluding property transfers to private corporations. With Kelo, the question of whether economic gain, resulting from a “taking” for corporate interests, constituted “public use” finally came under Supreme Court scrutiny, and five judges declared that if a corporation has interests, those interests are the same as government interests.
    • As proven by Eminent Domain, corporate interests change with economies. When corporate interests change, the property holder does not get their property back, and if seized under eminent domain, the government can choose what the value of the property is worth.
    • Ever want to see the power of bureaucrats in action, look at the abuses that property owners have suffered through eminent domain. Ever want to see why judicial restraint is critical, look no further than the still undeveloped land in the Kelo case!

As a patriot, I will defend your rights to a speedy trial.  A trial with due process of the law, speed, and urgency to restrain the lawyers and political operatives from “making charges appear” against you, hoping for your help in protecting my rights when the government comes to remove them from me.

PatriotismThe Seventh Amendment of the U.S.  Bill of Rights states:

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.

The Seventh Amendment is another amendment that, unless you have been a small claims court party, does not get a lot of attention.  Yet, I am exceedingly grateful for this amendment!  But, like the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, this amendment continues to be bloodied and abused at the hands of willful people for personal gain!  As a patriot, I choose to uphold the rights enshrined in the U. S. Bill of Rights, even those deemed obscure by politicians and activist judges who would see these amendments removed.

Police and Government Lines of CongruenceThe Eighth Amendment of the U. S. Bill of Rights states:

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

The courts regularly change the rules where bail is concerned, the various state legislatures also continue to meddle and change bail rules because of the term “Excessive Bail.”  More, the lawyers continue to claim particular punishments are “cruel and unusual.”  However, as a patriot, I do not see the death penalty as either cruel or unusual, as I have studied crime and punishment throughout history. There are much worse punishments that have been inflicted!  When a penalty is harsh, less crime is committed for fear of suffering the same fate.  Examples of this abound, even though many practitioners in psychology and lawyers will disagree.  To really influence crimes committed, both the sentencing needs to be a deterrent, and the nuclear family needs to be supported in society.  As a patriot, I support both the nuclear family and harsher punishments for a crime being committed.  Better still, I support freedom under the Rule of Law; the same law that applies to a poor man applies to a rich man.  The same Rule of Law that applies to the politically unconnected applies to the politically connected.  There is no reason why position, money, or influence should create a rule for thee and a different one for me, and this practice must cease forthwith!

moral-valuesThe Ninth Amendment of the U. S. Bill of Rights states:

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

The Ninth Amendment is essential, as not all human rights were encapsulated in the U. S. Bill of Rights, and this is a good thing!  The government cannot proscribe rights, nor can a person claim a right in ambiguity.  For example, recently, a person declared they had a right to a driver’s license.  A driver’s license and the privilege to drive is not a right; driving is a liberty closely controlled by the government.  Just as marriage is closely regulated and guarded liberty by the government, while I agree with driving, marriage should not be governed by the government but by religion.  However, since the government has seized marriage control and regulation from religion, as a patriot, I will support the government’s assumed right to regulate marriage until this can be changed in the legislatures at the Federal and State levels of government.  Is the purpose of the Ninth Amendment clear?

Andragogy - LEARNThe Tenth Amendment of the U. S. Bill of Rights states:

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.

My favorite amendment allows me to declare, as long as I follow the laws as rightly established in the legislatures and enforced by the executive branch of government, leave me alone!  More, as long as my actions do not infringe upon others’ rights, I can insist on being left alone by the tools of government policy.  You can insist upon being left alone to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, all because of the Tenth Amendment!  Celebrate this amendment, for, without it, the government could invent a right to pester you, and you would have no recourse.  Better still, this amendment declares something that is profoundly simple and exquisite in design; the individual states have control over the Federal Government.

Thin Blue LineLegal precedence and judicial activists would have you think otherwise, but this is not true.  The states were designed to be independent bodies, joining the Federal Government to solve conflicts between states amicably, ensure commerce between states was fair, and provide for the common defense rationally and logically.  Thus, the U.S. House of Representatives as the “People’s House,” and the U. S. Senate was the “State’s House,” where governors dictated who should represent the state.  When your governor lost control of the Senate, individual states’ rights were captured by the Federal Government, and chaos has ensued ever since.

LinkedIn ImageThe following has been written expressly for American society; however, the same dissection of your countries laws should be made to understand your rights and plot how to dissent legally while supporting your society’s good.  It remains imperative that before one launches on a dissension path, they know how to sail the waters successfully.  Hence, look at individual rights in your society, claim those rights, for if you do not claim those rights, they will be taken!

Regardless of your society, being a patriot is a choice.  You choose to stand for another person’s rights because you know if you do not stand today for others, tomorrow the government will come to take your rights, and no one will care.  Please choose to be a patriot.

Religion Quote 2A final word, faith is like freedom; when you possess freedom, and when you see freedom violated, you know.  Hope is believing in that which you cannot see, but long to keep.  Charity is the mindset of believing that all are equal and deserving of their fundamental human rights.  The fight to throw off the chains of bondage placed by the liberal leftists will require faith, hope, and charity.  Be believing, be hopeful, and be charitable and that which you send out will return!

© Copyright 2021 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images.
All rights reserved.  For copies, reprints, or sharing, please contact through LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/davesalisbury/

Republican Government: The Judicial, the Executive, and the Legislative

Disclaimer:  Calling America a Republic is the correct form of language to describe America’s Governmental system, it does not refer to the political party of the same name.  Referring to America’s government operations as democratic, does not refer to the political party of the same name.

The US Constitution set forth three separate and equal branches of government, possessing their own powers, authority, and processes for governing America.  The problem America is facing right now, the legislative especially, and the executive too frequently, have abnegated their powers to the judicial branch until it is quite common and acceptable for a Speaker of the House of Representatives to rely upon the judicial branch to ascertain intent of a piece of legislation, instead of fixing the legislation in the House of Representatives and the Senate.  So, since America’s schools have refused to teach this coequal system of government, and have bastardized the US Constitution, the following is produced.

The executive branch of government is where a person finds all the bureaucrats, or government employees, who exert the government influence through their decision-making authority granted them by elected officials.  This is one of the reasons why certain offices in government need both the Mayor, Governor, or President’s approval and the approval of an elected governing body, city council, State or Federal Senate.  The US Constitution put in place multiple checks and balances between the three coequal branches of government to ensure that no single branch could dominate all the branches or government.

The legislative branch, which includes city councils, state Houses of Representatives and Senators, and Federal House of Representatives and Senators, write the laws the executive branch is mandated to uphold and serve.  Thus, the will of the people in establishing laws through representation was established.  Therefore, legislators and senators have such tremendous power as to attract the special interest groups in our representative government.

The judicial branch does nothing more, or less, than interpret the constitutionality of a problem brought before a judge.  Criminal judges have a slightly different and more expansive role, but the constitutionality of an action remains the core and the boundaries of their power.

Inherent in the republican form of America’s government is the fundamental belief that there are boundaries and restrictions to action.  This is called the US Constitution.  Not to be confused with Federal, State, and Local rules, laws, and procedures.  A city ordinance is not the US Constitution and if that city ordinance is deemed unconstitutional for the state or federal constitution’s, a judge should declare as much and return the core issues to either the executive or legislative branch for correction.

We must be clear on this issue, the judicial branch can levy fines to encourage behavioral changes, but cannot, and should not, legislate from the bench.  Yet, when the legislatures refuse to enact laws that are fair, just, and timely, it has become common practice to run to a judge and get a judicial ruling.  Thus, causing chaos in the citizenry, and developing a new term for legal scholars, Lawfare.

Judicial Activism is where a judge declares that the US Constitution is a “living document” that should bend to every conceivable contemporary value.  Judicial activism removes the voice of the people from the legislative branches of government and interposes the opinions of a couple of judges as being more valuable than the will of the citizens.

Judicial restraint requires intestinal fortitude and limits the powers of judges to the US Constitution and state constitutions.  Judicial restraint is not popular and as such is regularly castigated by the media and those showing judicial restraint have aspersions, insults, and problems set before them.

Here are several examples of judicial overreach, e.g. judicial activism, that support the problem of legislatures or executives writing bad laws or executing poor policies, and demanding the judicial branch sort out the problems.  Where chaos in the citizenry ensued.

  • June 2015 – Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the Court ruled that a federal program requiring raisin growers to set aside a percentage of their crops for government redistribution was an unconstitutional “taking” under the Fifth Amendment.
    • An extension of judicial overreach from In United States v. Rock Royal Co-operative, Inc., 307 U.S. 533 (1939), the Court sustained an order under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 246, regulating the price of milk in certain instances.
    • The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 was a New-Deal Agricultural order that allowed the government to seize personal property from farmers, dairymen, etc. and give it away, to regulate prices across America. This is the same time where the power of the USDA began to rise and property began to change its definition as elaborated by Charles Reich in the 1960s.
    • Judicial activism allowed the government to break the fifth amendment of the US Constitution, and the practice continues to this very day by bureaucrat’s hell bent on destroying personal property safeguards in the US Constitution.
    • The legal precedent was set by another case of judicial activism in the Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon 260 U.S. 393 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property. This decision started the doctrine of regulatory taking and features prominently in the legal grounds for Eminent Domain.
  • June 2005 – Eminent Domain, Kelo v. City of New London by a 5-4 majority, it affirmed the city’s right to seize private land as part of an economic development plan—a redefinition of the “Takings Clause” under the Fifth Amendment. The US Constitution states clearly that, “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
    • Until this decision the Eminent Domain and Taking Clause had been strictly and rigidly defined. Five judges who believe in judicial activism opened this “Pandora’s Box,” and the havoc has been nonstop ever since.
    • What was in the “Pandora Box;” before Kelo, eminent domain had been limited to direct government ownership, excluding property transfers to private corporations. With Kelo, the question of whether economic gain, resulting from a “taking” for corporate interests, constituted “public use” finally came under Supreme Court scrutiny, and five judges declared that if a corporation has interests, those interests are the same as government interests.
    • As proven by Eminent Domain, corporate interests change with economies and when corporate interests change, the property holder does not get their property back, and if seized under eminent domain, the government can choose what the value of the property is worth.
    • Ever want to see the power of bureaucrats in action, look at the abuses that property owners have suffered through eminent domain. Ever want to see why judicial restraint is critical, look no further than the still undeveloped land in the Kelo case!
  • January 2011 – Obamacare, everyone should remember all the chaos that ensued in this political tug-of-war between the legislative branch and the judicial branch, with a healthy dose of political grandstanding thrown in for good measure by the executive branch.
    • A judge in Florida issued a decision in a case filed by 25 Republican Attorneys General and Governors striking down the Affordable Care Act.
    • Twelve federal judges have already dismissed challenges to the constitutionality of the health reform law, and two judges – in the Eastern District of Michigan and Western District of Virginia – have upheld the law. In one other case, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia issued a very narrow ruling on the constitutionality of the health reform law’s “individual responsibility” provision and upheld the rest of the law.
    • Worse, there remain multiple issues in Obamacare yet to be decided by the courts because the legislature refuses to clarify, act, or even respond to judicial opinions.
  • Continuous Issue (1973) – Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.
    • A little history on this subject, 1820s and 1830s abortions were common through the fourth month of pregnancy and herbs, pills, and other home remedies were prevalent for use. Then, the physicians of America and the government stepped in to prevent poisoning and assert control over home remedies, midwives, and other medical opinion providers of the time.
    • New York was the first state to legalize, or codify into law abortion, as a public health measure to improve the lives of women. But, the abortion industry had not begun targeting black and non-white communities.  The first women getting abortions mainstream were, a middle- or upper-class white married women.
    • Original feminists opposed abortion practices and wanted only voluntary motherhood through the “right of women to control sex with their husbands.”
    • The original laws banning abortion were enacted to humiliate women who had to discuss their bedroom affairs with the executive and judicial branch representatives.
    • Judges made the decisions to outlaw abortion, through judicial activism because it was taking the legislative branch too long to enact laws the special interest groups, the American Medical Association (AMA), wanted.
    • Judges then made the decision to make abortion on demand legal, through judicial activism, because again it was taking too long for the legislative branch to act and enact the appropriate laws.
    • Thus, judicial activism and abortion have a long and sordid history of causing chaos in America since at least the 1840s. Hence, when a person discusses Roe v. Wade they are only discussing the abortion on demand industry, and not the whole problem of judicial activism on this issue.
  • June 2015 – Homosexual Marriage. The executive branch of government, almost as soon as America was codified into law, began regulating marriage between a man and a woman, based upon Judaeo-Christian understandings of marriage.  By regulating marriage, the government gained a revenue source, a control mechanism for the behavior of the population, and set legal precedents for what is and is not considered a marriage by the state.  Each state adopted their own legal precedents, guidelines, rules, laws, and so forth leading eventually to 50-different opinions on marriage.
    • Important to note, nothing in the US Constitution requires the definition of marriage for all 50 states, nothing in the US Constitution prohibits the state executive branch to regulate marriage. The executive branch acted to regulate marriage licensing as a control measure on individual morality, e.g. the number of wives of husbands a person may have, marriage to animals being forbidden, etc.
    • Five judicial activists decided that all 50-states need to adopt homosexual marriage and exerted their opinion accordingly through the courts. This decision has trumped the executive and legislative branches of government, stolen the individual citizen’s voice, and created untold havoc and uncountable expenses for every person in America.
    • A marriage license and a driver’s license are both executive controls on the population through government setting rules, regulations, and policies. The definition of marriage is a state right’s issue, as the individual states claimed they have the right to regulate marriage when they individually began issuing licenses to marry or drive.
    • For or against homosexual marriage is a state right’s issue, not a Supreme Court, or Federal Government Issue. Hence, the judicial activism that drove this decision is the problem, not necessarily how the judges expressed their opinions.  This decision is a clear-cut example of needing to return a judicial decision to the states to decide through legislative action.

Judicial activism has been carefully cultivated into America, so that every time there is a problem, the solution is to grab a judge and demand a decision.  However, as shown herein, the courts are a gamble, and the worst that occurs is more societal chaos because a judge has overstepped their authority and made unequal the three branches of republican government.  Worse, that judge has rendered the democratic processes of the people’s rights to self-rule invalid, null, and void.

For example, Kelo should have been referred to the legislative and executive branches for a decision, as the “Taking Clause” was constitutional, but rigidly controlled.  But, because the judicial stepped in to “solve the problem,” through adjudication, chaos has ensued, which has forced, at a minimum, 40 different interpretations of the “Taking Clause.”  Which opens a minimum of 80-different potential decisions if the courts decide to take up the Eminent Domain issue again.  Talk about chaos!

The executive branch and the legislative branch must be held accountable for abnegating their duties.  This accountability occurs at the ballot box where the lazy and recalcitrant lawmaker is returned to being a private citizen.  Then, launching a judicially correct investigation into why that person abnegated their duties; especially, if personal enrichment occurred.  Judges are supposed to be held accountable through the actions of the legislative and executive branch taking firm action, not creating new laws.  The judicial branch oversees executive and legislative investigations only to ensure the US Constitution is properly followed.  Proper checks and balances!

However, there is a caveat to the US Constitution provided by the second president of the United States, John Adams.  “Our Constitution, [which includes all the separate state constitutions,] [were] made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other [type of person].”  Why has the executive and legislative branches abdicated their duties to the judicial; they are not inherently moral or religious.  Why has judicial activism exploded; the people in office are not moral or religious.

Thus, the solution for America is to begin hiring through the election process morally upright and religious people.  Every vote, in every election, matters.  Those on the political left understand this policy and use it as a weapon to create enmity and negate the power of the people to self-government and republican rule through democratic processes.  Make the time, get knowledgeable about candidates and issues, and then vote!

© Copyright 2020 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the pictures.
All rights reserved.  For copies, reprints, or sharing, please contact through LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/davesalisbury/

The US Bill of Rights – Knowing the Paradigm

GI JoeDuring much of the 1980s G. I. Joe cartoons had a commercial that ended, “Knowing is half the battle.”  In the spirit of “knowing,” the following is a discussion on the US Bill of Rights.  The US Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution.  Many people think that the US Constitution begins with these 10 amendments, and there remains significant ignorance over what is said, and what is meant, in the US Bill of Rights.  Finally, the US Bill of Rights, or the first 10 amendments, was passed by the US Congress and ratified by the states too, “… Prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (US Government) powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

Never forget, the preamble to the US Constitution describe why governments are formed stating, “… In order to form a more perfect Union (government), establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Amendment 1 states: “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.”  There is much to discuss regarding what is being witnessed in America right now where the First Amendment is concerned.  Peaceable assembly does not include throwing rocks, blocking traffic, interrupting the free flow of commerce into or out of a building, starting fires, shouting, screaming, or anything else like unto the behavior witnessed in America by radicalized youth and adults.  How does one tell the difference between peaceably assembly and protests; the answer is simple and comes down to one word, respect.

Aretha Franklin (1967) taught America about R-E-S-P-E-C-T and just following the basics she sang about, will differentiate between mobs and peaceably assembling.  But, do not forget, there is a purpose to peaceably assembling, to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”  Petitioning does not include screaming, using a megaphone, “sit-ins,” and other actions that disrupt the working of the government.  The actions of those in Portland, Seattle, New York, and several other cities where fires burn, private and public property is destroyed, commerce interrupted, business halted, and fear is spread, is the work of anarchists, terrorists, and villains, not people peacefully assembling to petition for redress.  Politicians take note, if you cannot tell the difference between a peaceful assembly and a riot, I am sure there are several police officers who can make the difference perfectly clear.

Respect is a two-directional path leading to communication, improvement, and the betterment of society.  If the respect flows out but is not returned, then the problem is with the receiver being selfish and communication will never occur.  If the sender is not sending out respect, the problem is a selfish sender, and contempt is all that will be returned.  Why is respect important; because in today’s political environment there is no respect.  Contempt for the voter, contempt for the other political side, contempt for law and order, contempt is running rampant and the fruits of contempt are a bitter fruit indeed.

Politicians, ask yourself, what do you do to reflect respect to the people you represent?  What do you do to reflect respect for the office you hold and the heritage left you as you fill the duties of that office?  What does your staff do to reflect respect back to those who hired you, through an election process, and pays for your staff through forced taxation?  If you only represent the big business and big donors who helped elect you, you are not respecting anything or anyone, especially yourself.  The first amendment to the US Constitution reveals much about a person, almost as good as holding up a mirror of the soul.

Amendment 2 states: “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.”  Much continues to be said and written about this amendment.  Many have tried to wrestle meaning from this amendment that runs contrary to the specially selected wording in the amendment, covering their actions by calling their shenanigans “the intent of the authors.”  Each citizen of America was considered a member of the militia, and as such the security of the American Republic, rested first in the hands of freedom-loving, gun-toting, people.  Stop selling snake oil, start accepting the fact that those who try to “judge intent” of the US Constitution are the problems in America.

kpiAmendment 3 states: “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.”  The language of this amendment, particularly, never ceases to amaze me.  In order to protect the liberty of individuals, soldiers cannot be housed in a citizen’s home; thus, protecting the ability and freedoms of thought and property from unlawful government intrusion.

Since fourth grade, it has amazed me to no end that the second amendment needed to be understood through the intent of the authors, but the first and third amendments needed no “intent” clarification.  This is not irony; this is blatant bias and opinion masquerading as benevolence.  I reject utterly and completely any and every argument based upon the “intentions” of the authors in understanding the US Constitution.

Amendment 4 states: “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.”  Speaking of “intentionality arguments,” the fourth amendment continues to be replete with interpretations by judges, lawyers, interfered with by bad case law, and weak-kneed Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions.  Like the third amendment, the fourth is all about keeping the government out of a person’s home, properties, papers, and so forth.  If there is anything more egregious in modern America, the abuse of the US Constitution must rank first, and foremost, in the minds of every American.  Several current issues are before the court and the lawyers will make more money, and the judges will make more money, but the citizens of America will be abused.

Lady JusticeConsider how the Patriot Act, a horribly misnamed piece of legislation, allows for warrantless searches in the name of protecting America.  Like the Affordable Care Act produced the reverse and increased the cost of health care while reducing the quality of health care, the Patriot Act has stripped patriots of safety in their property, papers, and so forth.  2018 had two cases argued before SCOTUS regarding warrantless searches and seizures; warrantless search and seizure is unconstitutional, yet they occur.  The two cases of warrantless searches were both decided by SCOTUS in the petitioner’s favor (Collins v. Virginia & Byrd v. Government).  SCOTUS has ruled on cellphone data, and many regarded that law as dangerous due to the argument that survives that since the government owns the technology the cell phone providers use, then the individual users have no right to privacy or constitutional protections by using cellular phones, cellular data, and where that user goes is able to be scrutinized without warrants.

Now, enter the lawyers, attorneys, and armchair lawyers who will argue and complain about my ignorance of the law, throwing up arguments, and muddying the issues.  Yet, the ACLU is making the arguments that the Patriot Act has reduced the American Citizen’s rights to the fourth amendment.  FISA Courts have been discussed due to the role they played in obtaining warrants to illegally spy on political opponents.  FISA Courts should scare the hell out of every American!  Yet, the Patriot Act passed with no debate, no discussion, and many legislators never read the bill before or after voting.

Amendment 5 states: “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.”  FISA courts empowered the FBI to be the politician’s best friend and the freedom-loving person’s worst enemy.  The taking of private land for public use continues to be abused beyond measure.  Eminent domain abuses abound, and one axiom of law I have come to appreciate is as follows, “Bad cases make bad case law!”  Where the concept of “eminent domain” is concerned this axiom remains telling, and the abuses of government unabated.  Between the principle of eminent domain and the Patriot Act, the fourth and fifth amendments have been stripped, the power shifted to the bureaucrats and politicians, and the abused American Citizen left without recourse.

LinkedIn ImageAmendment 6 states: “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.”  When it comes to legalese muddying the intelligence of an issue, I have not found anything more convoluted than the definition of a “speedy trial.”  Worse, with the FISA Courts not having to inform the accused, a person could be accused of a crime and never know they have been accused.

Amendment 7 states: “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.”  The seventh amendment remains important specifically for the re-trial in a different court of an issue settled by a jury trial.  Enter the convolution of “small claims court” as a method of settling matters between people or businesses (under $10,000).  To be frank, you can have a jury trial in small claims court, and some issues are worth having a jury hear evidence.

Amendment 8 states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  What does excessive mean according to a dictionary; “more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.”  Bail is all about incentivizing a person to appear in court.  Excessive bail used to be set in England as a means of keeping a prisoner in jail, to work.  Thus, the founding fathers desired bail to be reformed to prevent people from wasting away in jail from poor living conditions, harsh work conditions, and languishing in prison for a considerable time without trial.  Modern America has seen the abuse of language, the plasticization of terminology, and the convolution of excessive, into decreasing bail to nothing.  New York and California both have laws representative of these practices, to the detriment of law enforcement, the revolving doors of prisons, and the decrease in safety for the citizens affected.

ScalesAmendment 9 states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  Rights of the people, the US Constitution, and the individual constitutions of each state and commonwealth in the American Union, cannot infringe upon other rights of the people as they individually dictate.  How did we American Citizens lose sight of this amendment and what it means?  How did we lose the US Constitution?  Under Amendment nine FISA Courts should never have been established.  The right to die without health care intervention is encapsulated in the ninth amendment, but somehow this has been lost.  I remember distinctly losing the classroom debate that assisted suicide is a right under the ninth amendment; I also remember the day when states started passing laws to counter assisted suicide.  Consider the case of Boston Children’s Hospital v. Justina Pelletier, and you will find the ninth amendment abused and tattered by the hospital bureaucracy, as well as horrible malpractice.

Amendment 10 states: “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.”  Yet, America is replete with Federal and State laws which represent government overreach.  Yet, America is inundated with bureaucracies who design new rules without the consent of the legislative branch that empower the executive branch to trample individual rights, state’s rights, and liberties.  America, you have been abused by a runaway government, powered with politicians and bureaucrats who strive to “keep the gravy train running,” at your expense.

According to the US Constitution can a person choose to live in poverty; yes!  According to the US Constitution does the government have the power to pass out government benefits, which are nothing but taxpayer funds; no!  Yet, the US Government and the various states and commonwealth continue to choose who to pass out government funds to and interfere in people’s lives and choices.  How many times in American History has the actions of government improved a situation; zero!  War on poverty; lost!  War on drugs; failed.

Whale in OceanThe politicians, from both major parties, are guilty of government overreach and unconstitutional power grabs at the city, county, state, and federal government levels.  America must stand, to survive America must return to the roots established by the US Constitution.  Yes; this means getting the government out of Social Security, Welfare, and butting its nose into the rights and liberties of the individual citizen.  Consider the following, a whale and the ocean.  Does the government represent the whale or the ocean?  For if the government is the ocean, then the wale is reliant upon the government.  But, if the whale is the government, then we the citizens of America are the ocean and the government is dependent upon us.  The US Constitution claims the government is the whale and we the citizens are the ocean, and the government depends entirely upon the consent of the governed.

Well, I am revoking my consent!  The government has abused me enough.  I am done with government and bureaucratic overreach.  I reject the thought posited by Charles Reich that I am the property of the government.  Until the government is placed upon a strict constitutional diet, I revoke my consent to be governed.  We, the American Citizens, can retake control from the bloated feck beasts in government and correct the course of this Republic through the powers provided to us in the US Constitution.

The Duty of AmericansI speak by way of invitation; join me, revoke your consent to be governed by these totalitarians!

© Copyright 2020 – M. Dave Salisbury

The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the pictures.  All text quoted from another source set in italics and is not the property of the author.  Minor punctuation and spelling changes made.

All rights reserved.  For copies, reprints, or sharing, please contact through LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/davesalisbury/