Brushfire of Freedom

The Armory

Note: Originally published on April 7th, 2009

“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.” 

The importance of the first amendment should be noted in the title of this blog.  Four parts, just to review the first set of inalienable rights granted by our creator and protected by our founding documents.

Freedom of assembly is the right to come together with others of similar interest and express and defend common ideas and interests.  It protects peaceful assembly, not a violent mob, because the founders wanted people to be able to gather, protest, and raise awareness, but did not want lynch mobs running the streets.  Peaceful assembly has been demonstrated in the recent Tea Parties that have popped up across our nation.  These gatherings of hundreds, and now thousands of people, are groups focused on heightening awareness of our eroding liberties.  It is in the tradition, though not in the mold, of the original Boston Tea Party and Sam Adams, whose quote provides the name for our organization.

The founders knew that that an individuals free speech would be the “brushfire” that would continue to ignite the fires of freedom in the new United States.  They knew that the individual spirit was needed to keep those fires burning.  They also understood that a single flame could not sway a government, because the electorate would need to consist of many fires in order to carry the weight needed to shift government.  This was all based in the fact that power corrupts, and the founders expected the people to control the government through free speech, press, assembly, and petition.  For the republic to work, the majority would have to be informed and united to drive the changes away from the natural process of government growth, and toward the idea of controlled, minimal government of, by, and for the people.

When the government oversteps its bounds and takes action against the people, the people have under the first amendment the right to petition for a redress of grievances.  This was not put in place so the people can collect signatures, but to ensure that the people could demand that the government correct its missteps without fear of punishment for that request.  It is the ultimate “whistleblower” rule, in that it protects those who demand the government “get it right” from the possible reprisal of that government.  It does not require the government to honor the request, or even listen to the petition.  Thus it is necessary to place the weight of the electorate behind the petition to garner the action needed.

These last two rights protected under the first amendment are most critical when the government fails to act properly, or infringes on the other rights protected by amendments one through ten.  A redress of grievances means to set things right, to correct the errors made and clarified in the list of grievances.  The grievances are commonly listed in the petition, the redress is the required remedy, simple enough.  But the government is not required to listen or honor the requests, so why are these two rights protected in the first amendment?  The answer is in the numbers.  A single person can petition the government for redress, but would mot likely receive a polite thank-you.  However, a large protest of say 2,000 or more people in 2,000 cities across the country, on the same day, raising the same petition, that would attract the attention of those who are elected by a majority vote of the people.  If the government could prevent those assemblies and petition through fear of retaliatory action, the issue could not be effectively raised, he voice of the people as a whole would be stifled.   

The founders knew that assembly and petition were extensions of free speech and press, but necessary extensions to ensure the government could not exceed its bounds.  The people, not a person, are responsible for electing our government.  Our representatives are responsible for bringing the voice of the people, not a person, to the floor of Congress and the halls of government.  It is the people, the assembled voices, who can make their grievances heard, demand redress, and expect to be heard.  Failure of those representatives to hear the voices raised in petition would result in a change in the vote of the majority, and a change of leadership in the government.  That is why the right to assemble and petition is protected in the first amendment, and why we as a people should exercise these rights as we should all others protected by the founding documents of this nation.     

Contact Ramarious                                                  Brushfire Home

Copyright 2009.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

 Brushfire of Freedom

The Armory

Note: Originally published at Brushfire Sparks on March 24, 2009.

“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.” 

In addition to the right to a free expression of religion, the Founders felt it necessary to protect the freedom of speech.  It should be noted that the text of the amendment does not specify what type of speech.  It is not a freedom of liberal speech or approved speech or even militant speech.  It states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...period.  It is not a protection of the freedom of expression, but the freedom to speak your mind no matter the subject, no matter who might be offended.

Our freedom of speech has been rather insidiously eroded through several methods of attack.  Oddly, the same people who fight so diligently to protect the right of Larry Flint to publish and post pornography are offended at commentary by Don Imus and Sean Hannity.  These “PC Police” attack free speech by declaring commentary of which they do not approve to be “hate speech”.  The hate speech argument states that individuals do not have the right to speak their mind if another individual might at some point become offended by the comment.  In the words of the immortal Dr. Johnny Fever, “Booger”. 

It is quite possible, even highly probable, that someone that stumbles across the Brushfire site will find something offensive.  They might even find the commentary “hateful”.  It is this labeling of speech by the politically correct that has so stifled our political discourse.  By identifying commentary as “offensive” and demanding that this commentary be silenced, we have enabled those who would deprive us of our basic right to free speech.  We have given them a tool that they have used to beat back those who might oppose their opinions.  They have categorized words like “fail” and “discrimination” as non-cooperative, evil terms that they say define the person and not their specific views of that person.  Then they state that because these terms offend someone, the individual who uttered them should be silenced, and the words stricken from the record.  How is this supporting free speech?  

If you wanted to see true free speech in 2008, you needed only go to any of the “Bush is an Idiot” web sites (there were several) to see inane and often vulgar commentary on the policies and lifestyle of then-President Bush.  Yet that is protected speech under the first amendment.  Offensive?  Yes, to many it was but that is not the point.  The Founders knew that for this nation to survive in the form they had devised, a free and open discourse was not only necessary but a key stone.  

Want to see a restriction of free speech?  You should have tried to post negative comments on the Obama site during the same campaign.  When a government in power stifles or attempts to stifle the voice of its opposition, it has in fact eliminated the freedom of speech for all persons of that nation.  Look south to Venezuela and you will see that the first target of the Socialist dictator Chavez was to invade, close, and destroy the media outlets that opposed his positions.  Free speech is second only to freedom of religion in the minds of our founders.  Free speech is the voice of the nation, it fuels discourse, debate, and sometimes decisions.  The freedom of speech is key to the protection of the liberties of this nation.  

So why should you be concerned about this protected right?  First, because it is under attack by the current ruling party (yes, I meant to say ruling).  They are attempting to manipulate ownership, content, and regulation of media outlets to silence those that oppose them.  Yet these same people have defended their own dissension during the Iraq war.  They were outspoken against the policies of the President, much as others are now.  Since that is the case, the only rational conclusion regarding their current efforts to “manage” the media is that they wish to stifle the opposition.  They have taken a page from the Socialist handbook and are attempting to silence your voice.  The loss of free speech for even one person in this nation is an overt abandonment of that freedom outlined in the first amendment.  It is a freedom we must defend at all costs, before the voice of this nation, like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Chavezian Venezuela, is permanently silenced. 

Contact Ramarious                                             Brushfire Home

Copyright 2009.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

 Brushfire of Freedom

The Armory

Note: Previously published at Brushfire Sparks on June 30th, 2009.

There are many important documents in the history of this nation, but none is more significant than the primary document that declared our independence.  While most everyone can cite, “...life, liberty, ...” and some other associated portions, most Americans do not know or understand a great deal about the Declaration of Independence.  In light of the coming celebration of the very independence that this document declared, let’s take a brief look at some of the phrases that started it all.

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”    

The founders go on to provide an extensive list of grievances against the King.  These include several items demonstrating the King’s acquisition of power through destruction of local representation and judiciary.  They also mention the imposition of taxes without the consent of the people, the elimination of trade with the rest of the world, and the deprivation of rights that were provided to other British subjects.  They point out that the King had in effect waged war on the citizens of the colonies.  It was for these reasons that the framers of the Declaration felt that they were just in their decision to split from England and establish their own country.  Within this list of grievances you can see the basis for many of the rights that were later enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.  They do not paint a pretty picture of the British Monarchy.  You can imagine why John Adams received a less the warm embrace when he later became ambassador to England.

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

If you are looking for a basis of the foundation of the United States, you need look no further than the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.  This opening statement clearly identifies the human right to independence as established by “Nature’s God”.  It becomes the basis for the endowment of our rights by our Creator, and puts the decision for independence outside the boundaries of Man and into the hands of the Almighty.  By stating that this decision was a natural result of our very nature and the impact of past events, the Founders basically say that the King had left them no choice.  They are pointing to the fact that people in general desire independence and freedom.  We are wired that way.  There is nothing that a tyrannical leader can do to stifle that desire because it is part of our nature.  It is as God intended.  They note that this Declaration was inevitable and that there is little that even a king can do to change that fact.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The Founders go on to say that not only is independence an inevitable occurrence, but because of the grievances listed it is the duty of those people to abolish the old government and create a new.  They note that changing a government, that revolution, should not be done for insignificant and transient reasons, but that revolution is inevitable when the people suffer too long.  They call out the fact that when the government gets to the point that it is subjecting the people to complete control, it is the right of the people to declare independence and seek to replace the despotic rule with one that better guards the liberties and freedoms of the people.  This one paragraph says that people, as part of their nature, will revolt against a controlling, despotic rule.  We’ve seen this fact demonstrated time and again throughout history.  Most recently in China where students stood against tyranny, and in Iran, where students again took a stand against a despotic rule.  The founders knew that the nature of Man, as defined by God, is based in liberty and freedom.  It is thus inevitable that Man will rebel against all tyranny, for it is our nature by design.

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”   

The closing paragraph is the final declaration of independence from the British Crown.  The preceding statements and paragraphs justified the right of the people to vacate the government of King and replace it with their own, largely based in the nature of man to desire and strive for freedom.  It should be noted that both he opening and closing of this paragraph call yet again on God to judge their actions and provide support for their effort.  The Founders based their argument for independence on the unalienable rights with which each person is endowed by the Creator.  They then call on that same Creator to judge their actions.  They left their fates in the hands of the Divine Providence that had, from their perspective, established their right to declare independence.  Basically they admitted that they knew they were not infallible.  They knew that, as men, they may have judged incorrectly just as they had accused the King of making some bad decisions.  Had they been wrong, each person whose name appears on this document would have lost property, family, standing, and life.  Each would have been, quite publicly, destroyed and eliminated.  The King had already demonstrated his desire to quash the rebellion, and he had already destroyed many men who were attempting to lead America to freedom.  

The Founders were under no illusion that they would be given a pass were they to fail in this endeavor.  They also knew that it was possible that they had judged wrongly, and that God would put victory in the hands of the King and punished them for their failures.  The risk of failure was great, yet they trusted in God that they would succeed.  This is the courage that founded this nation.  It is the courage that drives us today.  And it is the courage that, if “...a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism...”, we the people will once again rely on our Creator and make the changes in government that are necessary to secure our God-given liberty and freedom.  

Have a spectacular Fourth of July holiday, and remember the cost and source of freedom. 

Contact Ramarious                                                      Brushfire Home

Copyright 2009.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

 Brushfire of Freedom

The Armory

Note: Originally published at Brushfire Sparks on July 14th, 2009.

“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.”

The final amendment to the Bill of Rights is another amendment designed to prevent the overly strict interpretation of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.  A modern version of the tenth might read, “Rights not given temporarily to the federal government by the Constitution are held by the States individually, and those rights specifically not temporarily granted to the States by the Constitution are held by the people.”  It means that even if you temporarily assign your rights to a State entity, say the police department, you still do not surrender these rights.  It means you have the right to defend your personal property even if you have a local police force who does it for you most of the time.

The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America have always had certain rights that the federal government may not usurp.  Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government.....", and the Ninth Amendment states that..."The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".  These two passages, among others, ensure that the rights with whic h we have been endowed remain our rights.

We have most recently seen the tenth in the news in the context of State Sovereignty resolutions.  Oklahoma, Texas, and others have all passed these resolutions to prevent federal mandates form being enforced against the will of the people of their states.  It is not officially a step toward leaving the union, but it does send a clear message to the Feds that that state will not have laws enforced within its borders that do not align with the will of the people in that state.  The tenth is the biggest banner we have that clearly states the government is of, by, and for the People.  

The recent passages by Texas and Oklahoma are not the first time states have asserted their sovereignty.  This happened in the case New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992). The federal government was attempting to mandate that the State of New York accept radioactive waste for disposal. New York pleaded they were exempt from the mandate under the Tenth Amendment and the court affirmed the Tenth Amendment protection. Thus, by having proclaimed sovereignty, a state is in the position to select those mandates they will follow, now by choice, not by edict.  In some cases the Feds may then establish sanctions against the state, which has been something of a common practice in recent years.  An example here would be the withholding of federal highway funds if a sate refused to set 55 MPH speed limits on highways and roads.  Montana got around this by establishing the limits, but only enforcing the limit through a $5.00 “environmental protection” fine that could be paid to the officer at the time of the “arrest”.  

Since the days of FDR, the tenth amendment has been largely ignored by the people.  It’s not ass flashy as “freedom of speech” or “the right to bare arms”.  As a result, the federal government is now doing all kinds of things that the constitution does not authorize it to do. 

The National Endowment for the Arts - Nowhere does the Constitution say that the federal government is to sponsor the arts.

Medicare and “Obamacare” - The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to get into the medical insurance business so, according to the tenth amendment, the federal government should stay out of it.

Social Security - The biggest “Ponzi” scheme in America today.  If you think Madoff was bad, you should see this monster.  Aside from that, it is a retirement program, something not designated as a Federal responsibility, therefor it is forbidden by the tenth. 

The Department of Education - Education is not the business of the federal government.  Aside from the fact that since it was established in 1979 (Jimmy Carter), the Dept. of Ed has overseen the absolute collapse of the American education system, the existence of the department is unconstitutional.

At this point many of my Liberal friends have become somewhat apoplectic, choking out the words “general welfare” with nearly every breath.  The whole “general welfare” argument is the fall back for Statists who believe that a big federal government is the path to American success.  The Founders would strongly disagree with that position:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

The Constitution was not written to give the federal government unlimited power over the nation.  Further, the Bill of Rights was included to ensure that the rights of the people were clearly understood, and well protected from the government.  To assume that the government has unlimited power to ensure “general welfare” is to assume that all other aspects of the Constitution is null and void, including the tenth amendment. 

Contact Ramarious

Brushfire Home

Copyright 2009.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

 Brushfire of Freedom

The Armory

Note: Originally published at Brushfire Sparks on July 7th, 2009.

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

One of the most significant points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the construction of the Constitution was the need for a Bill of Rights.  The Federalists believed there was no need for a Bill of Rights because they saw no need to, “...declare things shall not be done which there is no power to do...”.  The Federalist position was that the Constitution gave power to the government, and thus any power it lacked could not be exercised.  There was a further concern that an enumeration of rights would by default exclude any rights not listed specifically in the bill.  This became the spark for the creation of the ninth.

James Madison wrote a much more detailed amendment, “The exceptions [to power] here or elsewhere in the constitution made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations on such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution”. The Congress debating the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights boiled that down to the version we see today.  The bigg est question regarding the ninth is exactly what rights that were not enumerated created such concern with the Founders?

The ninth has not been frequently cited as a direct protection of any given right, though there are several cases where the ninth is brought forward in conjunction with other precedents or amendments.  The right to privacy is attributed largely to the ninth amendment, though no such right exists in any other part of the founding documents.  The ninth was also cited in Roe v. Wade as a basis for a woman’s right to choose, and is frequently used by constructionist judges as justification for judicial activism.  While it is difficult to say that the Founders would have supported either privacy (most likely) or abortion (most likely not), it is clear that there was concern on both sides that a powerful central government would overstep its boundaries and trample on the freedoms of the people.  The prevention of this catastrophe was the purpose of the Bill of Rights, and a strongly related purpose of the ninth.

What appears to be ignored in many cases brought before the courts is the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration clearly calls out, “...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...” as rights worthy of protection.  Thus it could be construed that the ninth was established to specifically protect those rights from an over-reaching central government.  As such, any practice that falls under “life, liberty, pursuit” would be protected by the ninth and the Bill of Rights, since they are not enumerated within the framework of the Constitution.  It may be useful to review recent judicial activity with this concept in mind.

First, Roe v. Wade may be considered in violation of the ninth, not established by the ninth, because the process of abortion prevents the right to life of the unborn child.  If you assume the right to life is an inherent right, not enumerated within the Constitution, then there is no need to determine when life begins.  Each person has a right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  The ninth clearly states that rights not enumerated are still in fact rights.  Thus the right to life is a right protected by the Constitution even though it is not enumerated in the Constitution, and those who can achieve “life” should not be denied the right to do so.  

We also have the right to liberty meaning, “The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.”  Forced retirement, at any age, would be a violation of liberty.  The loss of property without due process would be a denial of liberty.  The word “liberty” has easily traceable roots to the Latin word “liber” meaning literally “free”.  Liberty implies that the individual has the power to choose among alternatives i.e. whether to smoke or not, or to wear a helmet while on a motorcycle or not.  It is the right to liberty, unenumerated in the Constitution and thus protected by the ninth amendment, that is the source of freedom in America.  There is no right to restrict the individual based on “safety” or “crisis” or other events, real or manufactured.  The right to liberty is guaranteed by the ninth amendment because it is not a stated right in the Constitution.

Finally, the right to a pursuit of happiness.  I’ve dealt with the difference in pursuit of happiness and attainment of happiness in another blog.  Based on the Declaration and the protections offered in the ninth amendment, we each have a right to pursue happiness, based of course on our definition of happiness.  If we want to be an astronaut, we have the right to pursue that dream, even though it may not be attained, using all methods and paths that are legally at our disposal.  If we want to be CEO of GM, the government, specifically the President, does not have the right to remove us from that position just because they have another agenda for GM.  In fact it could be easily argued that the continued increases in taxes across all of America are in fact tacit denial of our right to pursue, and thus a violation of the ninth amendment.  Again, like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the ninth is designed to restrict the power of Government and protect the rights of the people, enumerated or not.  This is a fact that even the current siting President has publicly acknowledged, though his recent actions seem to stand in stark contrast against that fact.  It is truly amazing that a disagreement on even having a Bill of Rights could result in an amendment like the ninth, and evidence of the insight of the Founders in crafting our Constitution.  It is up to us to exercise these rights before they are lost.   

Contact Ramarious                                           Brushfire Home

Copyright 2010.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.