Reserved Rights - U.S. Constitution - How it Works.

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
61
Points
85
I suppose the easiest way to picture Reserved Rights is to review the Indian/Federal Government Treaties, fishing rights come immediately to mind. The Indians ok we will occupy this area, but you have to agree to our fishing rights over the whole territory. Hence we see all others buying fishing licenses and spin casting subject to a 2 or 3 catch limit, and the Indians with nets filling 50 gallon drums with fish side by side.

The Indians are exersizing whats called reserved rights.

Another example is if you the reader creates a contract with koko that you can walk your dog on kokos grass, no other conditions expressed, then I believe we are all in agreement that there are no constraints, like the indian treaties, you can freely walk your dog over kokos grass anytime you wish and there is nothing koko can do to change that without your express agreement, and amending the contract. We can all agree on that correct? Its basic contract law 001.

So you would not allow koko to narrowly interpret the contract so you can only walk your dog when the sun is shining? or during the day? after 12pm? Between 9am and 2pm? Sundays? Nope you would haul koko into court so quick and have a judge order koko to uphold the contract or he held in contempt of court wouldnt you, because no matter how narrow koko wants to slice it, it is a breach of contract. We all agree correct?

Which takes us to the constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights.

so....we have the government on one side of the table and the people on the other. The government wants to rule over you and grant privileges based upon public (in this case legislative) review, since in america we only vote on who is going to be our new trustees to the contract not on the substance within the contract, and presumably as the story goes (though not true in real life) like atrtorneys the presumption is they speak on our behalf. (Using their crystal balls since referendums to vote for the laws we are expected to live under are rarely if ever circulated) Hence the government and the people entered into a contract with each other, that is called a constitution.

The people rejected the constitution until the Bill of Rights was proposed, once the BoR was satisfactory the constitution had enough support and was then ratified based upon the inclusion of the BoR, (10 amendments) hence contingingent upon the incorporation of said Rights Reserved (the stay off the grass absolutely 'NO TRESPASSING' zone that the government agreed to honor) vis-a-vis the terms and conditions of the contract with the rights of the people set apart from government interference hence allowed for the creation and ratification of the constitution which otherwise today would not exist.

Simple contract law 101.

Here is the issue:

The government agreed that we the people have reserved the right to:

Free Speech,

'Exercise' their religion. (Not just pray)

Arms. (Not just muskets)

Trial by Jury adjudication. (Not Judge)

Privacy, (Modern Euphemism for 'effects')

Free Press

Etc


Like walking the dog on the grass there is no provisio for any legislation or court to narrowly interpret anything what so ever, or shift its meaning and/or intent outside of the unequivocal terms stated.


No provisio has been given either the government, or their courts, or legislators to create or take any regulatory action what so ever with regard to speech, religion, arms, jury trial etc.

These rights belong to each individual as part of their 'self' governance, not 'legally' subject to public purview, caveat causing damage or injury.

However that is not the case in america. The government dictates our religion, regulates speech, regulates arms, gives us trial by summary judgment circumventing a jury entirely, so the million dollar question is who usurped the rights of the people?
 
Last edited:

bruzz

marauder
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
105
Reaction score
6
Points
21
Location
communing with nature
You are right when you say the constitution is an express trust, and the US is under admiralty or contract law, not common law.
 

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
4,376
Reaction score
1,243
Points
145
Location
Texas
The 14th amendment usurps the entire constitution- Porter Rockwell argues it was illegally ratified- I don't know I've not studied it- but it wouldn't surprise me-

But, in answer to the question: ANY politician who intentionally misinterprets to suit ANY agenda- that would include Democrats and Republicans- we could begin a time line with the Civil War- or, we could fast forward to 1913 (for an arguably illegally ratified Federal Reserve Act, which I did study a bit years ago) - or we could come even more into the future with ALL the unjust and non-declared wars, foreign and domestic. Or we could look at Executive Orders- pens and phones- or we could look at the SC who some (some of them themselves) believe to be omnipotent and a part of the legislative branch (fines are a tax as a recent example) - it seems Scalia was, at least publicly, an originalist- I suppose he didn't believe an inert piece of paper was alive as come claim-
 

MadChemist

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
641
Reaction score
60
Points
75
The 14th amendment usurps the entire constitution- Porter Rockwell argues it was illegally ratified- I don't know I've not studied it- but it wouldn't surprise me-

But, in answer to the question: ANY politician who intentionally misinterprets to suit ANY agenda- that would include Democrats and Republicans- we could begin a time line with the Civil War- or, we could fast forward to 1913 (for an arguably illegally ratified Federal Reserve Act, which I did study a bit years ago) - or we could come even more into the future with ALL the unjust and non-declared wars, foreign and domestic. Or we could look at Executive Orders- pens and phones- or we could look at the SC who some (some of them themselves) believe to be omnipotent and a part of the legislative branch (fines are a tax as a recent example) - it seems Scalia was, at least publicly, an originalist- I suppose he didn't believe an inert piece of paper was alive as come claim-
The 14th is an interesting conversation.

Did you mean Lew Rockwell ?


This was a very interesting article.

Ambiguity on the part of the authors has resulted in some very bad JP from the SCOTUS.

And the 14th was the basis for the heinous doctrine of Selective Incorporation.
 

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
4,376
Reaction score
1,243
Points
145
Location
Texas
This was a very interesting article.
That is a good article. Informative and not entirely incorrect. Personally, as a libertarian, my opinion of the 14th amendment is that I've not read as much about it as maybe I should, as the article is way more informed than just being informed, which I am, to a dgree, though admittedly my information is based mostly on observation and reading comprehension. That said, Porter Rockwells essay which used some case law to cite against unalienable rights vs the stated (case law) inalienable rights is what *my personal reference* is always based on, unalienable rights as inalienable is a grant or privilege. That said, the 14th amendment does offer some protection from sovereign state decrees by empty suited ego's. It becomes a devil in the details situation and unintended consequences will come to bear.

The article also gives me some validation that judges should not be lawyers. The only requirement a judge should have to pass/prove is reading comprehension. I could argue the same thing about lawyers as their industry has created job justification with gobbledy-gook wording intended to confuse all but the most intent with time to cipher their gobbledy-gook legalese. Judges being appointed by another lawyer (or approved by a group of lawyers) gives them way too much fodder for their over-sized ego's and the application of ego renders justice being blinded by vs justice being blind.

One thing I've noticed about published libertarians is a propensity at either/or which is not conducive to furthering an appeal. Instead it offers the uninformed fodder for the straw man arguments which is how most people counter a proposal not in line with *official* duopoly Party rhetoric. Not that I disagree with either, or- but, like restaurant ownership 101 says about location, location, location- appeal to the heart and the mind will follow - is what noted libertarians might want to consider- appeal, appeal, appeal- most straw men arguers don't have the intellectual capacity or honesty to argue about liberty so it stands to reason the argument should be presented in an appealing manner.
 

MadChemist

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
641
Reaction score
60
Points
75
This was a very interesting article.
That is a good article. Informative and not entirely incorrect. Personally, as a libertarian, my opinion of the 14th amendment is that I've not read as much about it as maybe I should, as the article is way more informed than just being informed, which I am, to a dgree, though admittedly my information is based mostly on observation and reading comprehension. That said, Porter Rockwells essay which used some case law to cite against unalienable rights vs the stated (case law) inalienable rights is what *my personal reference* is always based on, unalienable rights as inalienable is a grant or privilege. That said, the 14th amendment does offer some protection from sovereign state decrees by empty suited ego's. It becomes a devil in the details situation and unintended consequences will come to bear.

The article also gives me some validation that judges should not be lawyers. The only requirement a judge should have to pass/prove is reading comprehension. I could argue the same thing about lawyers as their industry has created job justification with gobbledy-gook wording intended to confuse all but the most intent with time to cipher their gobbledy-gook legalese. Judges being appointed by another lawyer (or approved by a group of lawyers) gives them way too much fodder for their over-sized ego's and the application of ego renders justice being blinded by vs justice being blind.

One thing I've noticed about published libertarians is a propensity at either/or which is not conducive to furthering an appeal. Instead it offers the uninformed fodder for the straw man arguments which is how most people counter a proposal not in line with *official* duopoly Party rhetoric. Not that I disagree with either, or- but, like restaurant ownership 101 says about location, location, location- appeal to the heart and the mind will follow - is what noted libertarians might want to consider- appeal, appeal, appeal- most straw men arguers don't have the intellectual capacity or honesty to argue about liberty so it stands to reason the argument should be presented in an appealing manner.
Thanks for your response.

You've said a great deal here and I will need to digest some of it.

However, a bigger question I have is: Where are the voices that should be calling for the restraint we so desperately need ?

That is part of the reason I am working on this project.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top