RSS

Category Archives: 9th Amendment

Mini-Seminar by Adask


Adask at Hells Canyon

Adask at the “gates” of Hell’s Canyon, Idaho

I was recently interviewed by Stephen Roberts on “Cancel the Cabal”.  During that video interview, I explored the concepts of sovereignty and the “sovereignty movement,” as well as potential applications of the 1st, 2nd and 9th Amendments, and “MOOA” (“man or other animals”) in relation to drug laws, the war on drugs, police state, big pharma, and American medicine.

The interview lasts almost two hours.  It’s too long to be an “interview,” but it might reasonably be described as a “mini-seminar”.  Most won’t have the time to listen to the entire presentation.  But it’s actually a pretty good general introduction to a number of concepts, so, if you’re inclined to listen, here’s the link:

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Support 2nd Amendment Rights with the “Declaration of Independence,” Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and 9th Amendment


English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If I were to construct an argument to justify my right to “keep and bear arms” (including alleged “assault rifles”) under the 2nd Amendment, that argument might consist of several of the following parts:

1) Founders’ Purpose for 2nd Amendment

As I explained in The Purpose of the 2nd Amendment, we can learn the Founders’ intended purpose for the 2nd Amendment by reading the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”.

According to that Preamble, the purpose for the 2nd Amendment is not to empower Americans to hunt deer or ducks, or defend against an attack by Indians or even an invasion by Great Britain.  We retain the right to “keep and bear arms” so that we can shoot officers, officials, judges, bureaucrats and employees of the federal government who “abuse or misconstrue” their powers under The Constitution of the United States.  In other words, the 2nd Amendment is intended to guarantee that we have the necessary “equipment” to shoot those members of our own federal government who attempt to subject this nation to despotism (tyranny).

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Is the “Declaration of Independence” a Treaty?


English: This is a high-resolution image of th...

This is a high-resolution image of the United States Declaration of Independence (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I seem to deal with this problem every 6 to 12 months.  Someone reads what we’ve come to call the “Declaration of Independence” and sees that its proper name is “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” and leaps to the conclusion the proper name for this country must be the “united States of America”.

Back in the 1990s, when I first saw the proper name for our “Declaration of Independence,” I leaped to the very same conclusion.  I thought, “Damn!  The proper name for this country must be ‘united States of America’!!!  No wonder we’re having so much trouble in court!  We don’t even understand the proper name of our own country!!!

But over time, I realized that my conclusion (the proper name for this country is the “united States of America”) was mistaken.  That conclusion is a “rookie” mistake and I suppose that all of us who study our country’s political and legal foundation have already made it or are destined to make it at some point in the future.

•  For example, here’s a recent comment on my blog:

“I am surprised you did not pick up on or comment on the uncapitalized “u” in the word “united” in the original document and correctly reproduced in the early printings of the Declaration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg”>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg”

Given that I’ve addressed this issue in the past on radio shows, or in my former magazine (“AntiShyster”), and probably on this blog, I was a little bit surprised that I felt “compelled” to write a reply.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , ,

A 9th Amendment Road Back to Unalienable Rights


English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

Detail of Preamble to Constitution of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Don” is one of this blog’s regular most prolific “commentators”.  He recently posted the following comment:

 

“THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
“ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

“Sec. 1.”FREEDOM  AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. . . .”

“FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE>>>>>subject only to the Constitution of the United States. <<<<< This should make a light come on, especially when you consider IF it said: “subject only to the Constitution of the United States as unlawfully amended.”

  Read the rest of this entry »

 
42 Comments

Posted by on November 11, 2012 in 9th Amendment, Unalienable Rights

 

Tags: ,

The Essential Struggle


Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jeffe...

Image via Wikipedia

As seen in our “Declaration of Independence,” this country started with the principles that 1) “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”; and 2) “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”.  The first principle elevated all men from the status of subjects to the status of individual sovereigns.  The second principle declared that the purpose of government was to secure each individual man’s rights of sovereignty, and reduced government from the status of master to the status of public servants.

These two principles had never before been seen in an earthly government and are the foundation for the “republican form of government” guaranteed in our federal and State constitutions as well as “American exceptionalism”.

In A.D. 1793, the Supreme Court declared in Chisholm vs Georgia that the American people were “sovereigns without subjects”.   “Sovereigns“–plural.  Not one sovereign (as in a monarchy); a multitude of sovereigns.  Given that that case was decided just four years after the adoption of the Constitution, the Supreme Court had to know what the status of the American people was.  There’s no mistake.  This nation was conceived on the idea that every man (and woman) was an individual sovereign.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , ,

Definitions: The Law of the Law


A stack of legal dictionaries on a desk.

Image via Wikipedia

I’ve observed for several years that definitions are the “law” of the “law”.

For example, when the Bible commands “Thou shalt not kill,” does that mean “thou shall not kill anyone”?  Or does it mean “thou shalt not murder members of your own community, nation or race—but you can kill all the foreigners that you want?”

As Bill Clinton once observed, when it comes to knowing what a law means, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”  In other words, the meaning of every law depends on the underlying definitions of every word used to comprise that law.

This implies that if you’re charged under a particular law and you can successfully refute the presumed definition of just one of the key words in that law, you may be able to defeat the charges.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , ,

Bond vs U.S.


Close-up of the Supreme Court building in Wash...

Image via Wikipedia

Surely, there must be some mistake.

On June 16th, A.D. 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the case of Bond v U.S..  This case involves the standing of private individuals to invoke the 10th–and, to lesser degree, the 9th–Amendments.  The total document (syllabus, opinion and concurring opinion) released by the Supreme Court is 19 pages.

As I read that case, I find excerpts on almost every page that strike me as mind-boggling, explosive and even revolutionary.  I can’t recall reading another case in the past 28 years that filled me with such excitement, glee and even hope.

I see this decision as so extraordinary, that I can’t imagine how the Supreme Court (in a 9 to 0 decision (!!!)), would dare write this opinion without fearing for their lives.

This case seem so good, that my fundamental reaction is:  Surely, there must be some mistake.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , ,