The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

The Underlying Meaning of the Bill of Rights

Introduction

Our rights come from being born human and not from a government grant as I explained in my Article "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". For a religious person, these are rights granted to you from God. For a non-religious person, they are rights because you were born a sentient person. In either case, they are the Natural Rights of all persons and are not rights granted to you by a Government or Society. The Revolutionary War was fought because many Colonials thought that the British were violating their Natural Rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, the second clause of the Declaration of Independence outlines these Natural Rights and the responsibilities of government to protect these Natural Rights:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Revolutionary War was fought to retain and preserve these Natural Rights. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution) was adopted to preserve these Natural Rights. Specifically:

• The 1st Amendment was brought forth by the British attempts to shut down debate by dissolving legislative bodies and restricting assemblies, as well as constricting the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech to prevent public dissension from British dictates and mandates.
• The 2nd Amendment was brought forth by the British attempts to seize weapons of the Colonials. Indeed, the first battle of the Revolutionary War, The Battles of Lexington and Concord, occurred as a result of British troops marching from Boston to nearby Concord in order to seize an arms cache.
• The 3rd Amendment was brought forth by the British attempts to instill fear and intimidation to prevent dissidents from exercising their Natural Rights.
• The 4th through 8th Amendments was brought forth by the British attempts to pervert the judicial systems to assure that dissidents would not have due process rights and to fear imprisonment or worse if they exercised their Natural Rights.
• The 9th and 10th Amendments were to constrict the federal governments' powers to assure that other Natural Rights have not been impinged.

The United States Constitution was created to preserve our Freedoms and Liberties as explained in my Chirp “Freedom from - Liberty to”. The first ten amendments, “The Bill of Rights”, were adopted to prohibit the government from encroaching on our “Natural Rights”; Natural Rights that exist in or produced by nature, nor subject to governmental nor societal violations. The violation of these Natural Rights is the main reason that the colonies rebelled against Britain as I have explained in my article “The Meaning of the American Revolution”.

During the Constitution Convention and the public debate on its adoption two groups formed as to the inclusion of Natural Rights into the Constitution. One group thought that as the Constitution limited the scope of the Federal Government, and as this scope did not intrude on Natural Rights, that it was not necessary to delimit these rights into the Constitution. The other group thought as they had just fought a war to protect these Natural Rights and that these rights should be explicitly protected within the Constitution. In order to pass the Constitution, it was agreed that it should be passed as is and that one of the first efforts of the new government would be to incorporate these Natural Rights, via Amendments, into the Constitution. After the Constitution was adopted it fell to James Madison to accept hundreds of proposals for these amendments and consolidate them into a small set of proposals. James Madison winnowed them and rewrote them into 12 Amendments, 10 of which were adopted as The Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights to the Constitution was then ratified to assure Natural Rights. These Amendments are:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. 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.

These rights are not only protection from governmental interference in our Natural Rights but also for the protection of our Natural Rights in our personal, public, and commercial activities. These Natural Rights lead our Freedoms and Liberty as I have spoken of in one of my Chirps “Freedom from - Liberty to”.

During the many decades since the adoption of the Bill of Rights there has been much debate, and legal proceedings, to determine the actual meaning and scope of the Bill of Rights. This is how it should be to preserve the freedoms and liberties of all Americans. Today, however, much debate has gone into how to restrict or eliminate these Natural Rights. Specifically, the Rights of Free Speech, the Right to Bear Arms, and the Right to Practice Religion. And most of these assaults are from progressives and leftists.

An examination of our Natural Rights as espoused in the Bill of Rights may help to illuminate these issues.

The Right of Free Speech (1st Amendment)

The 1st amendment has often been misnomered as “Freedom of Expression” but it is better named as the natural right to the “Freedom of Conscience”. The conscience to a person's thoughts and actions, and the ability to practice their conscience in thought, words, and deeds. To speak and write what they think, to freely associate with whom they please, to practice their religious beliefs in their daily life, and to advocate for governmental change are the natural right to “Freedom of Conscience”. If government or society attempts to constrict any of these items, they are violating a person’s “Freedom of Conscience”.

The Freedom of Speech was a result of British authorities attempts to stop a person or persons from speaking their minds at any time, and in all places, and on any subject. These attempts were in the form of harassments, intimidations, imprisonments, and sometimes violence utilizing all the instruments of government (i.e. constables, troops, bureaucrats, and judges, etc.). Our Founding Fathers recognized they everyone has the right to express their thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. Without this right, they knew that suppressed speech could easily grow into civil disobedience, civil violence, and even civil war.   They, therefore, codified this right into the Bill of Rights.

Everyone has the right to express their thoughts, beliefs, and opinions., and would hopefully be done in a polite and respectful manner, but it is not required that they do so. The disrespectful or impolite speech should be condemned but not restricted.

This does not mean that you are free to do say or do anything you please, as you may be constricted from violating another’s Natural Rights. No one is free to slander or libel another person. You may also not be allowed to endanger another person’s safety. But this endangerment is limited to the physical safety of another, and not the practice of another’s Natural Rights. Therefore, attempting to stop peaceable meetings, dialog, or debate, shouting down another’s speech, preventing them from publishing or distributing their thoughts and ideas, practicing violence at demonstrations, and not allowing them to practice their religion in public or private, is a violation of their “Freedom of Conscience”. If you disagree with someone you have the freedom of speech to express your thoughts, beliefs, and opinions, but not to suppress another’s thoughts, beliefs, and opinions.

This restriction on free speech can be seen in today’s society by the attempts of many progressives and leftists to intimidate opponents into silence (further elaborated in my article “Dialog & Debate”), the establishment of Speech Zones (further elaborated in my article “Safe Zones”), the attempts to have restrictions on, or shut-down or shout-down, conservative speakers at colleges and universities or other public arenas. We have also seen the firing of prominent persons, commentators, or professors with whom progressives or leftists disagree, and the economic boycott of people or companies who disagree with your opinions and/or policies. Recently, we have also seen the deliberate doxing, publishing personal or identifying information about someone on the Internet (usually maliciously), to instigate personal fear and intimidation to remove their voices from the political arena.

You have no right to suppress another’s thoughts, beliefs, or opinions. You have no right to restrict others' free speech through verbal or physical acts of intimidation. Remember that the answer to free speech that you disagree with is free speech to voice your disagreement. The restriction of Free Speech will cause much more harm than any harm that could happen as a result of another’s Free Speech. If you restrict the free speech of another’s you will promote civil discourse, civil unrest, and potential civil violence of those whose speech is restricted.

The Right of Free Assembly (1st Amendment)

The right to peaceably assemble came from the British attempts to dissolve State legislative assemblies, and to prevent them from assembling and expressing their opposition to Royal Governor’s decrees, British Parliament laws, and the King’s orders that they thought infringed on their Natural Rights. The British also tried to break up street gatherings and protests, sometimes with violent measures, in opposition to British actions. The British also began raiding private meetings and attempting to arrest the participants who were discussing their opposition to British actions and to plan the response to these actions. To be fair to the British some of these street gatherings and protests turned violent, and the British considered these meetings seditious activities. However, the suppression of these State legislative assemblies, street gatherings and protests, and private meetings increased the opposition to British rule and eventually led to the American Revolution.

Our Founding Fathers recognized that these assemblies were important to civil society and for the people to express their Natural Rights. They also recognized that these assemblies needed to be peaceable for the Natural Rights to be preserved. They thereby codified the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and for legislative assemblies to form without government interference. They also codified the ability of Congress to meet, without interference, in Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution as “They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”.

Today we seem to have forgotten the scope of this right. First, all assemblies must be peaceable. For without being peaceable the Natural Rights of the participants, spectators, and bystanders are infringed. We also have government making laws, rules, and regulations that make it difficult for peaceable groups to form in the public square to express their viewpoints. This is a de facto restriction of the right to peaceable assembly. The people have a natural right to peaceably assemble, and the government has the responsibility to allow this peaceable assembly and to assure that it remains peaceable i.e. the burden is upon the government to allow and assure peaceable assemblies not upon the people who wish to assemble. We also have the government ignoring unpeaceable activities within these assemblies. Often the government responds that the demonstrators were mostly peaceable but being mostly peaceable is equivalent to being mostly a virgin. You either are or not peaceable (or a virgin), and if you are not peaceable then you should be arrested and prosecuted. For the government to not arrest and prosecute unpeaceable activities is an infringement of the Natural Rights to peaceable assembly.

We also have groups and individuals (both left and right) who believe that they should be able to prevent or disrupt a peaceable assembly. This too is a violation of the natural right to peaceably assemble. No group or individual has the right to infringe on another’s group or individual's natural right to peaceably assemble. Most disconcerting is that this is happening in our educational institutions. Institutions that should be promoting free exercise and the teaching of different ideas.

The Freedom of the Press (1st Amendment)

The Founding Fathers understood that a large contributing factor to the success of the American Revolution was the ability to report on the news and to espouse their views through the press. They were also aware the British government wished to control or suppress the press to infringe on the Natural Rights of the people. At and before the time of the American Revolution the only means that the people could disseminate their views was through letters, newspaper articles, and pamphlets. The Founding Fathers recognized that this ability was an important means of assuring Natural Rights and to preserve and protect the Freedoms and Liberties of the people. They, therefore, codified this ability in the Bill of Rights.

They also recognized that the best way to inform the people and to assure that all viewpoints were expressed, was for journalism to report on all sides of an issue. In America's past, there have been British vs. Colonialist, Constitution vs. Anti-Constitution, Federalism vs. States Rights, Agrarian vs Industrialist, Abolitionist vs. Anti-Abolitionist, North vs. South, Eastern Interests vs. Western Interests, Republican vs. Democrat, Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Pro-War vs. Anti-War, etc., etc. etc. reporting in journalism. You could always find journalism in support of one thing, and journalism in support of the opposite thing. Both sides have had an equal opportunity to espouse their views in journalism. This is how it should be for the American people to hear both sides of an issue and make up their minds where they stand on an issue. Journalism of this type also helps with the checks and balances of our political system, as it provides an outlet for all sides to express their views on an issue so that a consensus can be reached. However, in today's journalism, this ideal seems to be shrinking as I have outlined in my Article “Modern Journalism”.

The Right to Practice Religion (1st Amendment)

Religion was very important to our Founding Fathers. Many colonists immigrated to the colonies so they could escape the repression of their religious beliefs that occurred in Britain and other countries. They also did not want to pay taxes to support another’s religious beliefs, which was a common practice in Britain to support the Church of England. They believed that every person has the right to practice the religion of their conscience in their private, public, and commercial life. As long as the religious beliefs do not directly infringe upon the Natural Rights of others you should be able to practice your religious beliefs, and you should not be infringed upon nor harmed by the practice of your religious beliefs. Nor should you be denied any opportunity for achievement or success by the practice of your religious beliefs.

They, therefore, incorporated the Freedom of Religion into the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. They also incorporated the No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution a clause within Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution. In plain terms, no federal officeholder or employee can be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or a federal government job. Conversely, they cannot be barred from government service by practicing their religious beliefs. The only qualifier is that they Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States and that they faithfully execute the laws of the United States. This means that they cannot impose their religious beliefs on others as it would be a violation of the First Amendment. To question someone’s religious beliefs as fitness for government service, in either confirmation hearings or job interviews, is abhorrent to this doctrine and the Natural Rights of a person.

They did believe that government should not become involved in any religion, but they also believed that religion could be involved in government in the manner of formulation good social policy and law, and the espousal of the election of people of good character. All religions could advocate for laws that they believed to be just, and for the election of persons to formulate these laws. The separation of church and state was to separate the state from the church, not to separate the church from the state.

The major assault on religious freedom today is the freedom to practice your religious beliefs in the public and commercial arenas. No one should be forced to say anything, or do something, that is against their religious beliefs. This is why the Pledge of Allegiance is taken voluntarily rather than mandated. It is also the right to engage in religious ceremonies in the public arena as long as it is not mandatory for others in the public arena to engage in the ceremony. It also includes the right to disengage in any public or commercial activities that violate their religious beliefs. The only qualifier is that a publicly-traded company may not utilize the religious exemption as a basis for engaging in commercial activities. As they are a public company all of the public are free to engage in commercial transactions with a public company. A private company that operates on a religious foundation, however, can practice its religious beliefs in the conduct of its commercial activities. This does not give a private company the right to not engaged in commercial activities on the basis of race, religion, creed, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, veteran status, disability, military service, or political affiliation as these are protected rights. This right to disengage in a commercial transaction is not to be invoked lightly, but only in the circumstances where the commercial transaction would be a clear violation of their religious beliefs. The difficult question to answer is “is a private company acting on its religious beliefs?”. If not, then it has no right to claim this religious exemption, but if it is doing so then it has every right to claim this religious exemption.

The Right to Bear Arms (2nd Amendment)

The 2nd amendment is the natural right to protect yourself, your family, and your society, from violent acts that may be perpetrated against yourself or others. Whether these violent acts are from and individual, a group, or a government, you have the natural right to protect yourself against these violent acts.

Our Founding Fathers intimately recognized this right given the environment in which they lived. Robbery was a way of life for many destitute people, drunkenness often led to violent confrontations, and the frontier had many Indian attacks and skirmishes. The French and Indian war had taught them the need for an armed militia (and the militia was considered any male capable of fighting) in the event of war or battle of any kind.

They also knew from history (especially English history) that to preserve their Natural Rights against government oppression you needed to be armed in sufficient numbers and firepower to resist this oppression. They themselves learned this lesson intimately in overthrowing British oppression in the Revolutionary War. They also knew that throughout history governments tend to accrue power unto themselves and violate the Natural Rights of the people in doing so. The only protection against this was an armed populace that could and would resist government oppression.

They, therefore, codified this natural right to keep and bear arms as the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Therefore, you have the natural right to protect yourself from encroachments to your Natural Rights from individuals, groups, or government. And you have the natural right to arm yourself with sufficient and enough weaponry to protect yourself, and your family, and your society. And it is your right, and nobody’s else right, including a government, to determine what types and amounts of weaponry are necessary to protect your Natural Rights.  Therefore, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting and fishing but everything to do with protecting your Natural Rights. Without this protection, you cannot have Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence

Any attempt to restrict this Natural Right restricts your ability to preserve your Liberties and Freedoms. As to the language contortions that many progressives and leftists utilize to justify gun control I would direct you to a YouTube video “The History of the Second Amendment” that illuminates the nonsensicalness of these arguments. Do not be confused by the Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning or the “Euphemisms, Doublespeak, and Disingenuousness” that gun control proponents utilize to justify their position. As Lewis Carroll (Charles L. Dodgson), said in “Through the Looking-Glass” (1872):

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all.”

Do not let the Government or Gun Control advocates become the master of your natural right to keep and bear arms. You must jealousy retain that natural right to yourself. For if you do not do so then you give up your ability to preserve your Freedoms and Liberty.

Remember, that if crimes are committed utilizing a firearm then criminal arrests and prosecutions of the perpetrators should occur, not the banning of firearms. Just as if crimes are committed utilizing a knife then criminal arrests and prosecutions should occur, not the banning of knives. And just as if crimes are committed utilizing a club or any other instrument then criminal arrests and prosecutions should occur, not the banning of clubs or any other instrument. Crimes need to be prosecuted, and not the banning of items utilized in a crime.

The Rights of a Defendant and Due Process (4th through 8th Amendments)

During the course of the conflicts with British authorities, and the Revolutionary War, one of the most egregious acts of the British authorities was the perversion of the judicial system. The most egregious acts were violations of Natural Rights as specified in Amendments 4 through 8 of the Constitution. The British did not recognize “The Rule of Law” as outlined in my article of the same title. Indeed, they perverted the justice system to obtain the outcome they desired. It was not a “Justice” system, but an “Injustice” system, constructed to implement their authority.

In order to prevent the perversion of the judicial system to suppress the Natural Rights of the people, the 4th through 8th Amendments of the Constitution was ratified to constrict what the government may do in prosecuting a crime. This was, in effect, the outline of “The Rule of Law” and the beginnings of “Due Process” - the administration of justice according to established rules and principles; based on the principle that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards, within the United States. These protections were expanded upon by laws, rules, and regulations, as well as by judicial opinions, into a code of conduct for the judicial system to assure that the Natural Rights of a defendant are not impinged.

Today, however, we have a judicial system Natural Rights problems that need to be addressed.

Too often in today’s excessive legal activism, we utilize the judicial system, by both Prosecutors and Plaintiffs, to coerce an individual, organization, or company into actions or conduct that they would not otherwise do, even if their current actions or conduct is legal. The threat of legal action, the time and expense of defending your actions or conduct, and the damaging of your reputation, make it easier to acquiesce than to challenge a legal action. It can often be ruinously expensive to defend your actions and conduct. As a result, this is a constriction of your Natural Rights to Freedom and Liberty.

We have also seen an increase of a prosecutor initiating criminal proceedings against an individual, organization, or company, not because of clear violations of the law, but for the political purposes to appease an outraged public or special interest group, and sometimes to advance the prosecutors political aspirations. The resulting rush to judgment in the court of public opinion, and the political outcry against an individual, organization, or company, is often more damming and damaging than the alleged crimes that may have occurred and violates the Rule of Law of the accused to be presumed innocent.

Another nefarious judicial action is when prosecutors over-charge the accused or threaten legal actions against the accused family members in order to get the accused to plead guilty to crimes they may have not committed or to get them to turn states evidence against other persons. While there is a place for this in the judicial system, it should only be utilized when actual crimes may have been committed by the accused, or when the family member may have committed a crime. The danger is that in order to satiate the prosecutor the accused may embellish and even falsify their testimony (compose rather than sing), which negatively impacts the natural right of the presumption of innocence of the family members as well as the person(s) that was informed upon.

And all of this has a damaging effect on society in the social, economic, political, and judicial arena. The judicial system should only be utilized for the prosecution of crimes. Not for the political purposes to appease an outraged public or special interest groups, nor to advance the prosecutor's political aspirations.

Even after you successfully defend yourself against these charges your reputation and good name is often damaged beyond repair. We should remember the wisdom of the Bard:

“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.”
― William Shakespeare, Othello

Or as Raymond J. Donovan was famously quoted as asking after being acquitted of scurrilous legal charges "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?”.

And these actions by prosecutors and plaintiffs’ perverts the judicial system, and often violates the Natural Rights of the accused as well as The Rule of Law.

We also hear politicians making legal charges against their opponent that often bear little relationship to the actual criminal code, in order to score political points and damage the reputation of their opponents. You should always beware of a politician who uses legal terms to assail an opponent as they often have no basis in law.

Our judicial system is now becoming a political game. A political game of personal destruction which results in the violation of the Natural Rights of the accused. This must stop this game to preserve the Rule of Law and our Freedoms and Liberties.

Federal Government Restrictions and Other Natural Rights (9th and 10th Amendments)

A fear amongst the Founding Fathers was that by specifying the Natural Rights in the Bill of Rights that the government would interpret the Constitution to constrict Natural Rights to only those items mentioned in the Constitution. They were aware that it was not possible to specify all the Natural Rights in the Constitution, so they incorporated this language to recognize this fact, and to constrict the government from impinging on other Natural Rights. They also wished to constrict the Federal governments' scope of responsibly to only those items outlined in the Constitution. Therefore, they adopted the 9th and 10th Amendments to constrict the Federal governments (and State governments) to assure that other Natural Rights would be recognized.

The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution have almost become the forgotten amendments. In the 20th century with the rise of the Industrial Revolution, The Great Depression, two World Wars, the Cold War and the threat of nuclear destruction, and the implementation of the Great Society the Federal Government has accrued more power unto itself. This accrual has been at the expense of the Natural Rights “retained by the people” and to “the States respectively, or to the people”. And this accrual has often been at the expense of the Freedoms and Liberty of the people which violates their Natural Rights.

Summation 

Those who wish to restrict your Natural Rights, especially your natural right to “Freedom of Conscience” and to “Keep and Bear Arms”, wish to be your master and not the protectors of your Natural Rights.

Natural Rights are not given by society nor government, they are restrictions on society and government to not infringe on your Natural Rights. You do not have a Natural Right to be given anything, either by society or government, but you do have the Natural Right to obtain things through your own skills, abilities, and efforts. Therefore, anyone who wishes to give you something like a (natural) right does not understand the true meaning of Natural Rights. You must also remember that if someone gives you something they may ultimately take if from you. To listen to such a person often leads to the slippery slope of infringements of your Natural Rights. It also makes you dependent on the giver which will restrict your Freedoms and Liberties. You must also remember that when the government gives you something, they ultimately must take it from someone to give it to you. This taking infringes on the Natural Rights of those that have been taken from (further elaborated in my article “Entitlements”).

For those that say that this could not happen in the United States, I would respond that history has taught us that it can happen anywhere. Governments tend to accrue power unto themselves and violate the Natural Rights of the people in doing so. That is why Eternal vigilance is the Price of Liberty and Freedom.

Those who would restrict or eliminate our Natural Rights deserve no place of authority or responsibility within American society or government. For they are antithetical to the ideals of the American Revolution and Natural Rights. Always keep in mind that the Bill of Rights were not rights granted by Government, but Natural Rights inherent from God or your birth as a person. As such, only those that support Natural Rights should be in a leadership position within America.

Given the increasing uncivil climate of today’s society, it is even more important that we hold fast to the Bill of Rights and its underlying meaning to assure that our Natural Rights are not violated and that we have a Civil Society as further elaborated in my observation “A Civil Society”.