The Deliberate Death of the Bill of Rights
All Americans know that we in this nation have embedded in our constitution a Bill of Rights, some of the older folks may even be able to list all of them, however most, if asked would do well to get past the first two. Few will not know for instance that the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, a free press, free assembly, expression and the practice of a religion of their own choice. Even fewer know that it prohibits the federal government to interfere with the states or the people to exercise those rights, that it leaves the dominion of those issues firmly in the hands of the people.
Congress shall make no law respecting the 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.
How many truly know the founders original intent of that amendment? A hundred years ago the man on the street would most likely have said they intended it to ensure that government could not infringe upon those basic rights, that the founders added that amendment to prohibit the federal government from encroaching on what is the domain of the states and thereby the people. That statement would have been irrefutably true and is directly supported by the words of the founders in their own writings outside the confines of the Constitution. (see suggested reading at the end of this article to find the original words of the founders on the issues herein)
Today you are more likely to hear the opinion that the 1st Amendment supports the Supreme Court’s assertion that it constitutes an “establishment clause”. What is an “establishment clause” you might ask, and that is at the crux of the matter. The federal government in its thirst for power seeks to turn the structure of the Republic upside down; instead of it being a governance from the bottom up as it was designed, it must be from the top down in order to give them total control of the nation and her people. This is not possible with that pesky 1st Amendment in tact and under its rightful interpretation.
The first word in the Amendment precludes it from being used to control the states or the people; Congress shall make no law…… It’s abundantly clear that by the use of the word Congress the founders were not eluding to the states and their individual legislatures, the Judicial or the Executive branches of government. They meant exactly what they wrote, that the United States Congress shall have no power to make or enforce any law regarding religion, speech, press or assembly and the people shall forever have the right to speak out and demand remedy if that Congress should over step those bounds.
How then, if the federal government were to achieve total power and control could those words be re-defined, taken out of context and re-assigned a meaning more in line with federal supremacy? First there had to be a way to give the Congress the very power they were denied and in order to do that the Judicial branch of government must be used to declare a re-interpretation of original intent. That re-interpretation began in earnest with an establishment of a premise which does not exist, that of the wall of separation or as is commonly known today, separation of church and state. Nowhere in the constitution will you find that premise, it was simply a deliberate misinterpretation of the language used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter written to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them in 1801. The Danbury Baptists located in Connecticut, complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as inalienable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature or as favors bestowed. Jefferson’s letter of response did not address those complaints in regard to their state. Quite to the contrary his letter dealt only with the question on a national level. In the letter Jefferson used the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” when referencing that it was not the place of Congress or the Executive branch to do anything which might be interpreted as the establishment of religion.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]
Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion in the final draft of the letter sent to the Danbury Baptists, though it was not actually deleted in Jefferson's draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon his knowledge that the letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, Jefferson deleted the block, he noted in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.
A very grave disservice has been done to Thomas Jefferson by twisting his intent in order to justify the unfounded claim that his use of that phrase constitutes the fictitious premise of an Establishment Clause. Never mind that Thomas Jefferson not only did not sign the Constitution, he had no hand in writing it as he was out of the country when it was penned and signed.
This Judicial abomination took firm hold with cases such as Everson vs The Board of Education 1947, in which the Supreme Court made a gigantic leap from original intent to modern bastardization when they proclaimed the 1st Amendment to be Amended by the 14th , thereby making the 1st applicable to the states. In so doing the Supreme Court, without the power to do so, not only removed State sovereignty over many areas, but created a new revolution which established the unlawful, unconstitutional Nationalization of civil liberties.
The fourteenth amendment was passed and ratified in 1868 in order to guarantee State citizenship to emancipated slaves and their children. This amendment and the 15th which gave freed slaves the right to vote were intended as the establishment of racial civil rights and nothing more. For seventy years the courts applied the original intent until the thirst for federal power corrupted the very branch of government intended to protect the people from the same.
Once the fictitious becomes the accepted the liberties once held by the people can be used against them. Today the judicial rape of the Bill of Rights has become the basis for the destruction of our first amendment , the decline of our churches, the corruption of our youth and brought us to a condition of living not under a nation of laws but a nation ruled by the absurd notion of “Political Correctness”.
The writings of our founders resound with intention, in every conceivable way they could voice it, in every opportunity they could find to relay it. They pledged their lives, their liberty and their sacred honor in order to deliver the people from the very tyranny and oppression we have so irresponsibly allowed our federal government to become. By turning a blind eye in 1947 we have brought about our own destruction and handed over every unalienable right given us by our Creator to a corrupt, self centered, self promoting, all encompassing corporation known as the United States Federal Government.
Even our right to worship as we choose, to express objection and establish our communities based on our beliefs is used to vilify us. So what do we do about it? Do we rest on our collective backsides and accept the yoke of bondage? Do we join a Tea Party organization and hope that we can reverse the great damage by the simple act of voting the current regime out of office when it is already clear that both political parties are equally corrupt? Do we hope that the elusive but oft referred to “THEY” will do something about it? How will any of those options reverse the use of that great piggy bank filled by the sweat of the people and the loss of their freedoms for the benefit of a corporation and the leaders in Washington?
No, the answer is not to CHANGE the corporation but to RESTORE AMERICA. The answer is to re-inhabit our rightful Constitutional Government which has so slowly and insidiously been hidden from view and artfully obscured in progressive ideology for 134 years.
It all begins with each individual, one stands, one proclaims and then another and then a nation.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then we win.” Ghandi
"The people are the masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to over- throw the men who pervert it!"
Stand for yourself, your family and your Republic……..
Original Intent… David Barton
The 5000 Year Leap… W.Cleon Clousen