CDZ Liberty

[Porter Rockwell]

Today I found myself locked out of a thread here after a poster made a false accusation about me. It would have been inappropriate to change the topic anyway, so what this board needs is a thread about Liberty. Maybe that is an issue we should address for those who have the courage to discuss it. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

Notice that I bolded some words because we have to discuss them. But first, Thomas Jefferson (who penned those words) said that the Declaration of Independence is "The Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." So, let's define Liberty:

"Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons." (Black's Law Dictionary - Black's is the most authoritative legal dictionary within the legal community)

What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

America was founded on this presupposition that a Creator, a God (whomever each of us deems that to be) bestowed upon each person, at birth, unalienable Rights. Among those Rights is the Right of Liberty. Unfortunately, government and the English language make things almost impossible to understand so government grants privileges that they call "rights," but they are still privileges in my opinion since you have to ask for permission before you can get them. What government gives, government can withhold and even take away.

Unalienable Rights, being given by a Creator (if you believe in God) OR expressed in a state of being are inherent, absolute, natural, irrevocable and above the reach of government. I'd like to give you a couple of court rulings to illustrate the depth of these unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted..." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

If I have your attention and if this generates any interest, I'd like to explore this since both the left and right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican appear to be after one group or another's Rights.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Orin Porter Rockwell
Joseph Smith's bodyguard...right?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Orin Porter Rockwell
Joseph Smith's bodyguard...right?

Yeah, if I could accept Mormonism, he would be a hero to me. The Mormons are good people. Don't get me wrong. The church I was ordained in merged with the Mormons, but I could not accept the notion that Joseph Smith was anything other than a mortal, so I had to make an exit to do my own thing. But, yes, you are right.

 

[tyroneweaver]

While the Declaration of Independence lays out the presupposition that every man has unalienable Rights, it took the Bill of Rights to guarantee those Rights.

The Bill of Rights does not create Rights; it guarantees existing ones. The Constitution of the United States

Orin Porter Rockwell
Joseph Smith's bodyguard...right?

Yeah, if I could accept Mormonism, he would be a hero to me. The Mormons are good people. Don't get me wrong. The church I was ordained in merged with the Mormons, but I could not accept the notion that Joseph Smith was anything other than a mortal, so I had to make an exit to do my own thing. But, yes, you are right.

One Christmas decades ago I gave my father a thick book of his history.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

While the Declaration of Independence lays out the presupposition that every man has unalienable Rights, it took the Bill of Rights to guarantee those Rights.

The Bill of Rights does not create Rights; it guarantees existing ones. The Constitution of the United States is best described as a Social Contract. So, it matters little whether you believe in God or not... some people make their minds up about Liberty based on getting their boxers in a bunch because Jefferson wrote "endowed by their Creator."

At the end of the day you either believe that unalienable Rights are inherent, natural, irrevocable, absolute, and above the law OR you think that a majority can vote and your rights can go south to disappear where there is nothing you can do about it.

ORIGINALLY, the United States Constitution was written as a contract between we, the people and that entity called government. The Preamble of the Constitution states that:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

Now, let's see if that is enough to whet anyone's appetite.

 

[Agit8r]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?)"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise on Civil Government

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?)"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise on Civil Government

Thank you for giving me a starting point. I found it in your byline.

ONE of the hot topics in America is immigration. Immigration is misunderstood by over 90 percent of the people in America. For that reason I refer to people from foreign countries as foreigners - just as your byline in Deuteronomy does. Most people do not know what immigration is, so let me begin there:

"Immigration - The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence." Black's Law Dictionary

When people say "illegals, illegal immigrants", etc. it is meaningless terminology. If someone seeks permanent residence, they become a citizen. If someone comes here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered by the American people, they are simply foreigners.

When our forefathers came to these shores, they are what is known as immigrants. So bear in mind, when Jefferson penned those words in the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States because such a nation did not exist at that time. So, did Liberty apply to all men? That is a very complex question and that is why I'm doing this thread.

Again, the left and the right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican seem to have united against Liberty. The right conflates citizenship with Liberty while the left thinks a majority vote can be used to deprive people of Rights that were intended to be above the law.

 

[Agit8r]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?)"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise on Civil Government

Thank you for giving me a starting point. I found it in your byline.

ONE of the hot topics in America is immigration. Immigration is misunderstood by over 90 percent of the people in America. For that reason I refer to people from foreign countries as foreigners - just as your byline in Deuteronomy does. Most people do not know what immigration is, so let me begin there:

"Immigration - The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence." Black's Law Dictionary

When people say "illegals, illegal immigrants", etc. it is meaningless terminology. If someone seeks permanent residence, they become a citizen. If someone comes here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered by the American people, they are simply foreigners.

When our forefathers came to these shores, they are what is known as immigrants. So bear in mind, when Jefferson penned those words in the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States because such a nation did not exist at that time. So, did Liberty apply to all men? That is a very complex question and that is why I'm doing this thread.

Again, the left and the right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican seem to have united against Liberty. The right conflates citizenship with Liberty while the left thinks a majority vote can be used to deprive people of Rights that were intended to be above the law.

Unfortunately many people are unable or unwilling to think for themselves, and so they repeat the talking points that are thought up by snot-nosed congressional aids, and cable news writers. That is not a state of liberty. It is not the people governing themselves individually or collectively. It is allowing their strings to be pulled by those who hold economic and political power, to accomplish the ends that the oligarchy desires.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?)"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise on Civil Government

Thank you for giving me a starting point. I found it in your byline.

ONE of the hot topics in America is immigration. Immigration is misunderstood by over 90 percent of the people in America. For that reason I refer to people from foreign countries as foreigners - just as your byline in Deuteronomy does. Most people do not know what immigration is, so let me begin there:

"Immigration - The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence." Black's Law Dictionary

When people say "illegals, illegal immigrants", etc. it is meaningless terminology. If someone seeks permanent residence, they become a citizen. If someone comes here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered by the American people, they are simply foreigners.

When our forefathers came to these shores, they are what is known as immigrants. So bear in mind, when Jefferson penned those words in the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States because such a nation did not exist at that time. So, did Liberty apply to all men? That is a very complex question and that is why I'm doing this thread.

Again, the left and the right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican seem to have united against Liberty. The right conflates citizenship with Liberty while the left thinks a majority vote can be used to deprive people of Rights that were intended to be above the law.

Unfortunately many people are unable or unwilling to think for themselves, and so they repeat the talking points that are thought up by snot-nosed congressional aids, and cable news writers. That is not a state of liberty. It is not the people governing themselves individually or collectively. It is allowing their strings to be pulled by those who hold economic and political power, to accomplish the ends that the oligarchy desires.

I agree with you. Adding insult to injury, on these boards you have sheeple who have been conditioned, Pavlovian style, to react to certain stimuli, make baseless accusations, and then shut down mentally as well as emotionally. When I was viciously attacked in another thread I got locked out for reporting those who broke the rules. Even the mods and admin have a bias. Those who made the false accusations are not here to see that, while I'm white and care about my culture, heritage, history, etc. I do understand the concepts of Liberty and would never take it upon myself to deny another person their Right to Liberty. The political extremists (which are now a majority of all Americans) WILL put your Liberty into jeopardy.

We all have a Right to Life, but that is no guarantee that someone else cannot kill you. But, since you DO have a Right to Life, if that Life is taken by your fellow man, the authorities are obligated to find and punish the killer. Imagine that the authorities quit doing what they were obligated to do. Imagine a dictator coming to power and saying to kill all the whites... or Jews... or Muslims... etc., etc. Pick any group. If the system no longer protected those people, they then have a Right, under our laws, to protect themselves. The same principle holds true for Liberty. It's going to be uncomfortable, however for both sides to understand what Liberty is AND their obligation to uphold principles when they end up having to defend people they don't like and don't agree with.

 

[Flash]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

 

[jwoodie]

While the Declaration of Independence lays out the presupposition that every man has unalienable Rights, it took the Bill of Rights to guarantee those Rights.

Wrong. The first ten amendments were added as a result of the conditional ratification of the Constitution by several of the States. These amendments were designed to limit federal power and only applied to the federal government.

 

[Syriusly]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?)"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise on Civil Government

Thank you for giving me a starting point. I found it in your byline.

ONE of the hot topics in America is immigration. Immigration is misunderstood by over 90 percent of the people in America. For that reason I refer to people from foreign countries as foreigners - just as your byline in Deuteronomy does. Most people do not know what immigration is, so let me begin there:

"Immigration - The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence." Black's Law Dictionary

When people say "illegals, illegal immigrants", etc. it is meaningless terminology. If someone seeks permanent residence, they become a citizen. If someone comes here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered by the American people, they are simply foreigners.

When our forefathers came to these shores, they are what is known as immigrants. So bear in mind, when Jefferson penned those words in the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States because such a nation did not exist at that time. So, did Liberty apply to all men? That is a very complex question and that is why I'm doing this thread.

Again, the left and the right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican seem to have united against Liberty. The right conflates citizenship with Liberty while the left thinks a majority vote can be used to deprive people of Rights that were intended to be above the law.

First of all- thank you for this discussion- I think it is worthy.

Secondly I will presume you intentionally overly generalized. The right is more than happy to use the law to deprive people of Rights that were intended to be above the law- when it suits their other agendas. As does the left. This is rather the nature of people.

The Declaration of Independence was aspirational- and as you know- is not the law in the United States- but what an amazing aspirational document.

The Constitution- including the Bill of Rights of course is the law. And the Constitution applies to all of those inhabiting the United States- whether they are citizens, or non-citizens.

The Constitution mentions liberty in the preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While the Constitution does mention citizens- the Bill of Rights within the Constitution refers to the liberties that people within the United States have. There is no stated distinction. The plain language of the Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to Liberty as recognized in the Constitution.

Finally, there was an actual argument at the time of the writing of the Constitution about whether the Bill of Rights would be used to too narrowly identify the liberties that we the people have. The argument as I remember it, is that by codifying the Bill of Rights- there were be those who would argue that those were the only rights that Americans were guaranteed. And that has been the case.

I still think that the Bill of Rights is an amazing document- but that doesn't mean that our rights are limited to what the Bill of Rights says.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

I realize you asked that as a rhetorical question; however, I have a no B.S. response for you. It is the key to understanding the law AND being able to predict how a lot of major cases will be decided in the very near future.

In 1868 Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment:

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Prove Its Real – Fighting to repeal the 14th amendment and restore the original form of government.

14th Amendment is actually ILLEGAL as it was never RATIFIED!

ONE of the really mean and nasty things the 14th Amendment did was to abolish unalienable Rights and replace them with government granted privileges (though they still call them "rights") and they can bend, twist, or deny them because government granted you what they call "privileges and immunities" in that Amendment. The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights.

All anti-gun decisions, even the Heller decision, calls upon the 14th Amendment to justify denying you the Rights they admit (even in Heller) were preexisting Rights codified into law by the Bill of Rights. The answer to your why is the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

While the Declaration of Independence lays out the presupposition that every man has unalienable Rights, it took the Bill of Rights to guarantee those Rights.

Wrong. The first ten amendments were added as a result of the conditional ratification of the Constitution by several of the States. These amendments were designed to limit federal power and only applied to the federal government.

WRONG. In the Heller decision, Justice Scalia was delivering the majority opinion and rebuking Justice Stevens anti-gun position. Scalia wrote:

" It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Syriusly]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

Is it a 'Right' for you to hire, fire, or sell your house to whoever you want?

Certainly it isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution. This is where the concept of inherent rights gets wobbly- because you and I may disagree on what is an inherent right.

Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I have to stop for a red light? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I can't dump toxic pesticides in the river that runs through my property? Why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me I can't bribe foreign officials for my business's benefit?

Or perhaps onto more hotly debated issues: why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me that I can't buy contraceptives(which was the case until the Supreme Court ended that)? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell a woman she can't have an abortion? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell me that I can't own and use explosives in my home in a city? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell someone that they can't burn the American flag?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?)"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise on Civil Government

Thank you for giving me a starting point. I found it in your byline.

ONE of the hot topics in America is immigration. Immigration is misunderstood by over 90 percent of the people in America. For that reason I refer to people from foreign countries as foreigners - just as your byline in Deuteronomy does. Most people do not know what immigration is, so let me begin there:

"Immigration - The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence." Black's Law Dictionary

When people say "illegals, illegal immigrants", etc. it is meaningless terminology. If someone seeks permanent residence, they become a citizen. If someone comes here to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered by the American people, they are simply foreigners.

When our forefathers came to these shores, they are what is known as immigrants. So bear in mind, when Jefferson penned those words in the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States because such a nation did not exist at that time. So, did Liberty apply to all men? That is a very complex question and that is why I'm doing this thread.

Again, the left and the right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican seem to have united against Liberty. The right conflates citizenship with Liberty while the left thinks a majority vote can be used to deprive people of Rights that were intended to be above the law.

First of all- thank you for this discussion- I think it is worthy.

Secondly I will presume you intentionally overly generalized. The right is more than happy to use the law to deprive people of Rights that were intended to be above the law- when it suits their other agendas. As does the left. This is rather the nature of people.

The Declaration of Independence was aspirational- and as you know- is not the law in the United States- but what an amazing aspirational document.

The Constitution- including the Bill of Rights of course is the law. And the Constitution applies to all of those inhabiting the United States- whether they are citizens, or non-citizens.

The Constitution mentions liberty in the preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While the Constitution does mention citizens- the Bill of Rights within the Constitution refers to the liberties that people within the United States have. There is no stated distinction. The plain language of the Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to Liberty as recognized in the Constitution.

Finally, there was an actual argument at the time of the writing of the Constitution about whether the Bill of Rights would be used to too narrowly identify the liberties that we the people have. The argument as I remember it, is that by codifying the Bill of Rights- there were be those who would argue that those were the only rights that Americans were guaranteed. And that has been the case.

I still think that the Bill of Rights is an amazing document- but that doesn't mean that our rights are limited to what the Bill of Rights says.

Answered some of that in a previous post just a moment ago. See the Tenth Amendment after you read about how the 14th Amendment was used to nullify the Bill of Rights.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

Is it a 'Right' for you to hire, fire, or sell your house to whoever you want?

Certainly it isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution. This is where the concept of inherent rights gets wobbly- because you and I may disagree on what is an inherent right.

Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I have to stop for a red light? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I can't dump toxic pesticides in the river that runs through my property? Why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me I can't bribe foreign officials for my business's benefit?

Or perhaps onto more hotly debated issues: why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me that I can't buy contraceptives(which was the case until the Supreme Court ended that)? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell a woman she can't have an abortion? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell me that I can't own and use explosives in my home in a city? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell someone that they can't burn the American flag?

The government can "tell" you a lot of things. They may have the power to pass unconstitutional laws, but even the United States Supreme Court has opined that you do not have to obey unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

 

[Syriusly]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

I realize you asked that as a rhetorical question; however, I have a no B.S. response for you. It is the key to understanding the law AND being able to predict how a lot of major cases will be decided in the very near future.

In 1868 Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment:

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Prove Its Real – Fighting to repeal the 14th amendment and restore the original form of government.

14th Amendment is actually ILLEGAL as it was never RATIFIED!

ONE of the really mean and nasty things the 14th Amendment did was to abolish unalienable Rights and replace them with government granted privileges (though they still call them "rights") and they can bend, twist, or deny them because government granted you what they call "privileges and immunities" in that Amendment. The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights.

All anti-gun decisions, even the Heller decision, calls upon the 14th Amendment to justify denying you the Rights they admit (even in Heller) were preexisting Rights codified into law by the Bill of Rights. The answer to your why is the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.

If the 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights- then gun owner would have no recourse when states passed gun restriction laws, etc, etc. You reference Heller, but of course Heller itself revolves around the 2nd Amendment- which would not be the case if the 2nd Amendment was 'null'. What the 14th Amendment recognized was that the Bill of Rights applied to state laws in addition to federal laws.
A clear reading of Heller shows that if the 2nd Amendment was 'null'- the gun laws would still be in effect in Washington D.C.

While I understand that you feel that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, I don't get how you think the 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Part II of my previous post:

Here is how the courts have ruled on your Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

 

[Syriusly]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

Is it a 'Right' for you to hire, fire, or sell your house to whoever you want?

Certainly it isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution. This is where the concept of inherent rights gets wobbly- because you and I may disagree on what is an inherent right.

Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I have to stop for a red light? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I can't dump toxic pesticides in the river that runs through my property? Why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me I can't bribe foreign officials for my business's benefit?

Or perhaps onto more hotly debated issues: why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me that I can't buy contraceptives(which was the case until the Supreme Court ended that)? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell a woman she can't have an abortion? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell me that I can't own and use explosives in my home in a city? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell someone that they can't burn the American flag?

The government can "tell" you a lot of things. They may have the power to pass unconstitutional laws, but even the United States Supreme Court has opined that you do not have to obey unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Of course no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law.

But lots of people are in jail who claim that they didn't have to obey an unconstitutional law.

Lots of peaceful protesters in the '60's went to jail for exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly.

Nowadays the cases that come to mind are those who claim that the income tax law is unconstitutional

William J. Benson, the co-author of the book The Law that Never Was (in which Benson had argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified), was convicted of tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns in connection with over $100,000 of unreported income, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. He was sentenced to four years in prison and five years of probation. See United States v. Benson.[62] Benson's "Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified" argument was rejected. On December 17, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Benson's "Reliance Defense Package" (including Benson's Sixteenth Amendment non-ratification argument), constituted a "fraud perpetrated by Benson" that had "caused needless confusion and a waste of the customers' and the IRS' time and resources."[63][64]

Just because you believe that a law is unconstitutional- it doesn't mean anyone is required to believe what you believe. If you are willing to face the consequences of defying what you believe to be an unconsitutional law, I think it is your right to do so.