CDZ Liberty

[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.

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.

Well, if you take the time to READ the dicta of a lot of court cases, you find the justification for infringements to be based on the 14th Amendment. You kind of walked over my other response before I could post it, but it shows that decisions like Heller over-ruled the United States Supreme Court's own holdings. That amounts to legislating from the bench. George Washington warned against that practice:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Farewell Address 1795

The only justification the Court can conjure up to avoid the charge of legislating from the bench is to invoke the 14th Amendment - and that always, always, always is to justify an infringement of your 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)

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.

With Liberty comes the price of defending it. While some people did go to jail for not paying the illegal income tax, many others won in court. But, because the government did not pursue those people, they are not in any recorded cases.

Be that as it may, you either fight back and defend your Rights OR you acquiesce to an out of control tyrannical government. Many Americans feel that they have been pushed as far as they can go. So, they will have to exhaust all of their nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress. If the government still denies you your Rights, read the Declaration of Independence for guidance on what happens next.

I would have no problem declaring a state of separation between myself and that entity that operates out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption.

 

[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?

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?

Government fucks up everything it touches, even when it comes to defining Liberty.

Our Bill of Rights fall shorts of insuring Liberty in many ways. It was a great attempt and it sounded great at the time but as time went on and the greedy assholes of this country started to carve out their own little special niches then the definition of real Liberty became less and less of an insurance policy against government tyranny. Some people like government tyranny. Like when the filthy anti gun nuts want to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

If you are arguing that the filthy government can take away your Liberty and justify it then you will no argument for me. We see it all the time. Hell, as an example, the filthy ass murderous government said a few decades ago that you can be killed on demand for the sake of convenience if somebody else thought that you were a bother to them. If that ain't depriving Liberty to a human and justifying the action as a Constitutional right I don't know what is.

Our government has become more oppressive as time goes on. We ain't going to fix it at the ballot box just by electing Conservatives over stupid Liberals. We need to start all over again with the premise that the government needs to stay out of our lives. Then put some teeth into enforcing that conviction.

 

[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?

Government fucks up everything it touches, even when it comes to defining Liberty.

Our Bill of Rights fall shorts of insuring Liberty in many ways. It was a great attempt and it sounded great at the time but as time went on and the greedy assholes of this country started to carve out their own little special niches then the definition of real Liberty became less and less of an insurance policy against government tyranny. Some people like government tyranny. Like when the filthy anti gun nuts want to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

If you are arguing that the filthy government can take away your Liberty and justify it then you will no argument for me. We see it all the time. Hell, as an example, the filthy ass murderous government said a few decades ago that you can be killed on demand for the sake of convenience if somebody else thought that you were a bother to them. If that ain't depriving Liberty to a human and justifying the action as a Constitutional right I don't know what is.

Our government has become more oppressive as time goes on. We ain't going to fix it at the ballot box just by electing Conservatives over stupid Liberals. We need to start all over again with the premise that the government needs to stay out of our lives. Then put some teeth into enforcing that conviction.

We have a dilemma:

The system is broken and it cannot be fixed. We started out with a premise of Liberty and we created a nation that was founded by whites for the advancement, protection, and preservation of their race. Too many people find fault with that, but have nothing to say about other homogeneous societies. China, North Korea, Japan and Zimbabwe are all countries where one people constitute over 97 percent of the citizenry. If it's done in America, it's called racism.

But, that is where we are. Conservatives live in denial. Liberty did not mean that the founders / framers intended to make all races, cultures, religions, creeds, etc. equal in every respect. What the framers tried to do was phase out slavery, allow people to come here and partake of free enterprise, but they did not intend to have the chaotic nonsense we have today.

We cannot afford to feed and educate the rest of the world. We have a finite amount of land and resources. We cannot lump radically different people under the same umbrella of government and expect nothing less than total confusion and contention. Somehow we lost perspective on the Rights of Liberty with the benefits of citizenship. Now, both sides of the political spectrum are dissatisfied, but the conservatives pretend to be standard bearers of our cultural heritage, but they conflate Liberty with citizenship.

History is cyclical and we are in the mid stages of bondage. Tytler's Cycle of History works like this:

Bondage
Spiritual Faith
Courage
Liberty
Abundance
Selfishness
Complacency
Apathy
Dependence
Then starting over with Bondage

We're supposed to have the Freedom of Speech. How many people go to jail, lose their jobs and / or ostracized for being politically incorrect? BTW, Chuck Woolery, the former game show host, just gave an interview where he says that his support of Trump cost him his career. You're supposed to have a Right to keep and bear Arms, but we have over 40,000 plus federal, state, county and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, Executive Orders, court rulings, etc. that put a limit on your Rights. Where did Liberty go?

Due to recent court rulings over the last decade, the United States Supreme Court dealt a death knell to the well established precedent of unalienable Rights. The liberals love parroting that liberal line that "no "right" is absolute (from the Heller v DC ruling), despite over 186 years of established precedent (including United States Supreme Court rulings) confirming that you do have unalienable Rights. Now that it is official - you don't have Liberty because there are no Rights above the tyrants in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption. You officially live in a tyrannical POLICE STATE and when it becomes unbearable, we begin the Cycle of History over again.

 

[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?

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?

Government fucks up everything it touches, even when it comes to defining Liberty.

Our Bill of Rights fall shorts of insuring Liberty in many ways. It was a great attempt and it sounded great at the time but as time went on and the greedy assholes of this country started to carve out their own little special niches then the definition of real Liberty became less and less of an insurance policy against government tyranny. Some people like government tyranny. Like when the filthy anti gun nuts want to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

If you are arguing that the filthy government can take away your Liberty and justify it then you will no argument for me. We see it all the time. Hell, as an example, the filthy ass murderous government said a few decades ago that you can be killed on demand for the sake of convenience if somebody else thought that you were a bother to them. If that ain't depriving Liberty to a human and justifying the action as a Constitutional right I don't know what is.

Our government has become more oppressive as time goes on. We ain't going to fix it at the ballot box just by electing Conservatives over stupid Liberals. We need to start all over again with the premise that the government needs to stay out of our lives. Then put some teeth into enforcing that conviction.

We have a dilemma:

The system is broken and it cannot be fixed. We started out with a premise of Liberty and we created a nation that was founded by whites for the advancement, protection, and preservation of their race. Too many people find fault with that, but have nothing to say about other homogeneous societies. China, North Korea, Japan and Zimbabwe are all countries where one people constitute over 97 percent of the citizenry. If it's done in America, it's called racism.

But, that is where we are. Conservatives live in denial. Liberty did not mean that the founders / framers intended to make all races, cultures, religions, creeds, etc. equal in every respect. What the framers tried to do was phase out slavery, allow people to come here and partake of free enterprise, but they did not intend to have the chaotic nonsense we have today.

We cannot afford to feed and educate the rest of the world. We have a finite amount of land and resources. We cannot lump radically different people under the same umbrella of government and expect nothing less than total confusion and contention. Somehow we lost perspective on the Rights of Liberty with the benefits of citizenship. Now, both sides of the political spectrum are dissatisfied, but the conservatives pretend to be standard bearers of our cultural heritage, but they conflate Liberty with citizenship.

History is cyclical and we are in the mid stages of bondage. Tytler's Cycle of History works like this:

Bondage
Spiritual Faith
Courage
Liberty
Abundance
Selfishness
Complacency
Apathy
Dependence
Then starting over with Bondage

We're supposed to have the Freedom of Speech. How many people go to jail, lose their jobs and / or ostracized for being politically incorrect? BTW, Chuck Woolery, the former game show host, just gave an interview where he says that his support of Trump cost him his career. You're supposed to have a Right to keep and bear Arms, but we have over 40,000 plus federal, state, county and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, Executive Orders, court rulings, etc. that put a limit on your Rights. Where did Liberty go?

Due to recent court rulings over the last decade, the United States Supreme Court dealt a death knell to the well established precedent of unalienable Rights. The liberals love parroting that liberal line that "no "right" is absolute (from the Heller v DC ruling), despite over 186 years of established precedent (including United States Supreme Court rulings) confirming that you do have unalienable Rights. Now that it is official - you don't have Liberty because there are no Rights above the tyrants in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption. You officially live in a tyrannical POLICE STATE and when it becomes unbearable, we begin the Cycle of History over again.

I think that we are in agreement.

Our present form of government is not capable of protecting our individual liberties.
The Bill of Rights is ignored by both law makers and the courts.

It may be theoretically possible to reestablish the Bill of Rights and our Republic but in reality it ain't gonna happen.

We are not going to restore liberty through voting for one big government party over another.

We need a Republic with a Bill of Rights that provides ironclad protection against government oppression. We should have the protection that prevents the ballot box from being used for the 51% to steal and take liberty away from the 49%.

 

[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?

Government fucks up everything it touches, even when it comes to defining Liberty.

Our Bill of Rights fall shorts of insuring Liberty in many ways. It was a great attempt and it sounded great at the time but as time went on and the greedy assholes of this country started to carve out their own little special niches then the definition of real Liberty became less and less of an insurance policy against government tyranny. Some people like government tyranny. Like when the filthy anti gun nuts want to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

If you are arguing that the filthy government can take away your Liberty and justify it then you will no argument for me. We see it all the time. Hell, as an example, the filthy ass murderous government said a few decades ago that you can be killed on demand for the sake of convenience if somebody else thought that you were a bother to them. If that ain't depriving Liberty to a human and justifying the action as a Constitutional right I don't know what is.

Our government has become more oppressive as time goes on. We ain't going to fix it at the ballot box just by electing Conservatives over stupid Liberals. We need to start all over again with the premise that the government needs to stay out of our lives. Then put some teeth into enforcing that conviction.

We have a dilemma:

The system is broken and it cannot be fixed. We started out with a premise of Liberty and we created a nation that was founded by whites for the advancement, protection, and preservation of their race. Too many people find fault with that, but have nothing to say about other homogeneous societies. China, North Korea, Japan and Zimbabwe are all countries where one people constitute over 97 percent of the citizenry. If it's done in America, it's called racism.

But, that is where we are. Conservatives live in denial. Liberty did not mean that the founders / framers intended to make all races, cultures, religions, creeds, etc. equal in every respect. What the framers tried to do was phase out slavery, allow people to come here and partake of free enterprise, but they did not intend to have the chaotic nonsense we have today.

We cannot afford to feed and educate the rest of the world. We have a finite amount of land and resources. We cannot lump radically different people under the same umbrella of government and expect nothing less than total confusion and contention. Somehow we lost perspective on the Rights of Liberty with the benefits of citizenship. Now, both sides of the political spectrum are dissatisfied, but the conservatives pretend to be standard bearers of our cultural heritage, but they conflate Liberty with citizenship.

History is cyclical and we are in the mid stages of bondage. Tytler's Cycle of History works like this:

Bondage
Spiritual Faith
Courage
Liberty
Abundance
Selfishness
Complacency
Apathy
Dependence
Then starting over with Bondage

We're supposed to have the Freedom of Speech. How many people go to jail, lose their jobs and / or ostracized for being politically incorrect? BTW, Chuck Woolery, the former game show host, just gave an interview where he says that his support of Trump cost him his career. You're supposed to have a Right to keep and bear Arms, but we have over 40,000 plus federal, state, county and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, Executive Orders, court rulings, etc. that put a limit on your Rights. Where did Liberty go?

Due to recent court rulings over the last decade, the United States Supreme Court dealt a death knell to the well established precedent of unalienable Rights. The liberals love parroting that liberal line that "no "right" is absolute (from the Heller v DC ruling), despite over 186 years of established precedent (including United States Supreme Court rulings) confirming that you do have unalienable Rights. Now that it is official - you don't have Liberty because there are no Rights above the tyrants in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption. You officially live in a tyrannical POLICE STATE and when it becomes unbearable, we begin the Cycle of History over again.

I think that we are in agreement.

Our present form of government is not capable of protecting our individual liberties.
The Bill of Rights is ignored by both law makers and the courts.

It may be theoretically possible to reestablish the Bill of Rights and our Republic but in reality it ain't gonna happen.

We are not going to restore liberty through voting for one big government party over another.

We need a Republic with a Bill of Rights that provides ironclad protection against government oppression. We should have the protection that prevents the ballot box from being used for the 51% to steal and take liberty away from the 49%.

We are in 100 percent agreement.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Dr. Paul starts at 9:55

Relevant reading (Book) - Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom

That is all.

 

[Gdjjr]

I think it's telling that so few have entered this conversation. Being the analytical sort I am I can't help but wonder (and I do have some very substantive opinions) on the *why* we, the "stinky tourist", have arrived at this point in History. Liberty is the foundation of this Country, there are no caveats in all men are created equal and have certain unaliebable rights. But, as is seen, we argue over who can best control us- Democrats or Republicans - while those who address Liberty on the National stage are relegated to whack jobs and fringe. It's no wonder as Liberty is "fringe" in a world of control freaks.

As well as being analytical I'm also an optimistic pessimist- sometimes vice versa, and somewhat philosophical in my beliefs.
There are some things that just can't be denied. Liberty is dependent on exercising it. When one, or many, choose to let tyranny of the few over the many it becomes obvious it isn't being exercised. That is the pessimist in me. The optimist leads me to thinking of something else Washington said- Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.
Philosophically, I see myself as a sower of seeds- the seeds of Liberty. I preach it when the opportunity presents itself and I live it to the best of my ability by doing my dead level best to leave my space a little better than I found it.

I use the poem by Martin Niemoller as an example of why Liberty is to be defended- it's amazing the lack of understanding the analogy that poem speaks to. That ignoring speaks to a shallow minded recipient and it applies to most of the citizenry.

There is no instant fix. Instant gratification leads to buyers remorse and unintended consequences. It's taken this long to tear down what was built and in simple mechanical terms, it takes longer to build or rebuild than it does to tear down. The courts are of little help as they are reflections of the control freak attitude ingrained in society-

When havoc is created, chaos ensues, and catastrophe is inevitable- some things can't be denied. The catastrophe can be minimized but not avoided- it is up to the Individual to leave his space a little better than he found it by exercising his inherent rights as he sees fit, respectfully, setting an example which can be exponential in it's expansion as is any example. It's our choice- the most basic of rights- as to what we do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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.

“…while the left thinks a majority vote can be used to deprive people of Rights that were intended to be above the law.”

Wrong – this is false.

The ‘left’ advocates for no such thing.

Indeed, liberals acknowledge the fact that citizens’ rights and protected liberties are paramount, that our rights and protected liberties are not subject to majority rule, and that our rights and protected liberties are immune from attack by ‘majority rule.’

Moreover, liberals have opposed measures proposed or enacted by Republican and conservative lawmakers seeking to deny minorities their right to vote, women their right to privacy, immigrants their right to due process of the law, and gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law.

These are but a few examples of where conservatives have sought to deprive citizens of their rights and protected liberties ‘justified’ by the notion of ‘majority rule’ – again, all opposed by liberals.

If one is going to engage in ‘clean debate’ concerning the topic of liberty, he should do so truthfully, accurately, and in good faith – not with lies and false presumptions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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.

“I do understand the concepts of Liberty and would never take it upon myself to deny another person their Right to Liberty.”

One seeks to deny another person his right to liberty when he votes for an elected representative who will support a law or measure contrary to Constitutional case law; a law or measure that would disadvantage a religious minority, for example.

An individual alone cannot deny a citizen his rights and protected liberties, as he lacks the authority and means to do so – only government has the authority and means to potentially violate the liberty of citizens; but individuals can take from citizens their liberty through the political process, through the force of law, when those laws and measures violate the jurisprudence that protects and defends our liberties.

To understand the concepts of liberty is to understand the fact that although our liberties are inalienable, they are not absolute – they are subject to lawful limits and restrictions by government.

And to recognize those lawful limits and restrictions is not to advocate for ‘denying’ another person his right to liberty.

“The political extremists (which are now a majority of all Americans) WILL put your Liberty into jeopardy.”

Disagree – ‘political extremists’ in no manner constitute a ‘majority’ – one shouldn’t confuse ignorance and apathy with ‘extremism.’

Moreover, our liberty is in jeopardy only when we refuse to oppose elected representative who seek to enact measures repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, elected representatives who have contempt for that case law and the rule of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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.

Correct.

The Framers did not presume to have a finite, comprehensive understanding of all rights and protected liberties – the Bill of Rights codifies the principles of liberty afforded to the people to defend their liberty from government excess and overreach; and its jurisprudence codifies when and how government may enact lawful, appropriate limits and restrictions on citizens’ liberties.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Incorrect.

For more than a century the Supreme Court has acknowledged the fact that the Bill of Rights places limits and restrictions on state and local governments as well.

Incorporation Doctrine

 

[Third Party]

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.

You sound like Levin. As far as being muzzled, now you know how Trump feels.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Actually, this is wrong.

The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), not Heller.

And the notion that Justice Stevens was 'anti-gun' is a lie.

 

[danielpalos]

"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.

We have supreme laws of the State land and the federal land, for a reason. Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution.

Did you know it was Intelligently designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception?

That is "how far off the mark we are".

We should be more faithful to our supreme law of the land.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Not with the several citizens in the several States.

You always welcome to discriminate with capitalism, unless you prefer socialism.

 

[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.

“…while the left thinks a majority vote can be used to deprive people of Rights that were intended to be above the law.”

Wrong – this is false.

The ‘left’ advocates for no such thing.

Indeed, liberals acknowledge the fact that citizens’ rights and protected liberties are paramount, that our rights and protected liberties are not subject to majority rule, and that our rights and protected liberties are immune from attack by ‘majority rule.’

Moreover, liberals have opposed measures proposed or enacted by Republican and conservative lawmakers seeking to deny minorities their right to vote, women their right to privacy, immigrants their right to due process of the law, and gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law.

These are but a few examples of where conservatives have sought to deprive citizens of their rights and protected liberties ‘justified’ by the notion of ‘majority rule’ – again, all opposed by liberals.

If one is going to engage in ‘clean debate’ concerning the topic of liberty, he should do so truthfully, accurately, and in good faith – not with lies and false presumptions.

Stay tuned. danielpalos has rejoined the board. He's about to prove what you said to be false. He is America's voice of liberalism.

 

[Gdjjr]

Liberty cannot be reduced to a left/right paradigm except through compete ignorance. The left, in US politics, is the face of restricting except of those it approves. The Right is no different in terms of the latter. Neither Party respects the Individual unless that Individual brings a lot of money to the table. Disrespecting the Individual is an affront to Liberty. The Left, nor the Right, would exist without Individual effort- all others are merely supporting cast looked at by politicians in one of two classes.
Enemies or tools.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The Union had to win simply because only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[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.

“I do understand the concepts of Liberty and would never take it upon myself to deny another person their Right to Liberty.”

One seeks to deny another person his right to liberty when he votes for an elected representative who will support a law or measure contrary to Constitutional case law; a law or measure that would disadvantage a religious minority, for example.

An individual alone cannot deny a citizen his rights and protected liberties, as he lacks the authority and means to do so – only government has the authority and means to potentially violate the liberty of citizens; but individuals can take from citizens their liberty through the political process, through the force of law, when those laws and measures violate the jurisprudence that protects and defends our liberties.

To understand the concepts of liberty is to understand the fact that although our liberties are inalienable, they are not absolute – they are subject to lawful limits and restrictions by government.

And to recognize those lawful limits and restrictions is not to advocate for ‘denying’ another person his right to liberty.

“The political extremists (which are now a majority of all Americans) WILL put your Liberty into jeopardy.”

Disagree – ‘political extremists’ in no manner constitute a ‘majority’ – one shouldn’t confuse ignorance and apathy with ‘extremism.’

Moreover, our liberty is in jeopardy only when we refuse to oppose elected representative who seek to enact measures repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, elected representatives who have contempt for that case law and the rule of law.

Rights, as originally and intended ARE absolute. You just outed yourself as either ignorant OR a socialist or maybe communist. Here are the FACTS:

“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)

Apply that concept to the Second Amendment (one that liberals hate, loathe and despise):

According to Wikipedia:


"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

Even the Heller Court acknowledged that the Second Amendment was a preexisting Right, but then applied the "inalienable" standard as opposed to calling it an UNALIENABLE Right, which as you well know, the words inalienable and unalienable are interpreted differently in federal law.