The Shredding of the Constitution
Individual liberties have been at the core of our Great American Experiment since it’s beginning. The Federalist Papers and Declaration of Independence make the case that certain rights are inalienable and the Constitution sets down the framework by which they should be protected. President Obama is the master at the helm of a liberty-destroying administration replete with progressive extremists. Obama’s collection of far-left radicals find the Constitution to be a major obstacle to their self-aggrandizing agenda – precisely the obstacle our founders had intended it to be.
While an investigation into infringements upon every right protected by the constitution is warranted, I will focus on those found in the Bill of Rights – the first ten amendments to The Constitution of the United States.
Freedom of Expression – The First Amendment
H.R. 5175, The Disclose act – a tool of the left to strengthen the hand of big labor (unions) on our government while weakening the voice of free enterprise. The left position it as a way to limit special
interests from affecting our governance. In truth, it forces any large group that, other than long standing, non-profit groups with more than 500,000, makes a large contribution to a campaign. They basically want to intimidate corporations from contributing while removing that limitation from the liberal’s favorite special interest group, Unions.
The fundamental problem is that Obama and his cronies would gladly squash the right to free speech for anyone that does not further their cause. There is no better proof of Tyranny than this. If you don’t think SEUI and the AFL-CIO are pretty much holding the puppet strings now ..
Right to Bear Arms – The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.
No, Mr. President, it does not. The second amendment does not give any rights to anyone. It protects what rights the founders felt were already ours, bestowed by God or nature – for simply being human. The actual wording in the second amendment that pertains to the right to bare arms is
..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The second amendment prevents the government from obstructing, limiting or taking away a basic right. The Constitution does not give us this right, or free speech ,or equal protections .. it prevents a tyrannical government from stripping them away. Changing the understanding of our Constitution is a key tactic if a group wanted to render the document useless. If the population were to believe that the government gave them the rights they have, they might be more willing to cede those rights at the government’s urging. If instead the people understand what Jefferson and company intended, the government has neither the power to give nor take these rights, they are inalienable.
Search, Seizure and Privacy- The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..
Consider how much you say and do using your cell phone and email. Earlier this year, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice attempted to obtain emails from Yahoo without a warrant.
For its part, the Justice Department has taken a legalistic approach: a 17-page brief it filed last month acknowledges that federal law requires search warrants for messages in “electronic storage” that are less than 181 days old. But, Assistant U.S. Attorney Pegeen Rhyne writes in a government brief, the Yahoo Mail messages don’t meet that definition.
Do you even remember what email you might have sent six months ago? I have been emailing Senators and Representatives, media centers and local government officials for years. I shudder to think that the government could collect my past writings without proof of a crime being committed, just so they might then try to find one.
The DOJ failed in its quest to infringe upon our fourth amendment rights as they pertain to email, but they have a clear difference of opinion with the Constitution. In February, the Obama administration made its disregard of our rights perfectly clear (emphasis mine).
..the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
They believe they can track American citizens without their knowledge and without a warrant.
Due Process – The Fifth Amendment
On May 9th, Eric Holder appeared on ABC and announced that he intended to weaken our right do due process by changing how Miranda rights are applied
We’re now dealing with international terrorism. And if we are going to have a system that is capable of dealing in a public safety context with this new threat, I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public safety exception. And that’s one of the things that I think we’re going to be reaching out to Congress to do, to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our time and the threat that we now face.
The public safety exception that Holder is seeking is intended to allow law enforcement to question subjects when imminent danger is perceived without concern of the suspects comments being disallowed. Rick Unger makes the point in “Obama Administration seeks to restrict 5th Amendment protections”
Under current law, authorities may question a suspect prior to reading the individual the Miranda warnings if the safety of the public, the suspect or the officer asking the questions is immediately imperiled. In this situation, the responses of the suspect remain admissible in a court of law.
The case that established the exception, New York v. Quarles 467 U.S. 649 (1984), involved the police having information that a man committing a burglary in a food store was armed with a gun when he went into the store. When the alleged burglar was captured, his gun was nowhere to be found. Concerned that the man could still have access to the missing weapon and, therefore, the capability to hurt someone, the court held that the police had not violated Miranda when they asked the man “Where’s the gun?” and he answered, “The gun is over there.”
Unger’s article goes on to make a point about applying Miranda to foreign terrorists, which I believe are committing acts of war and should not be given these protections, but those in the Uniform Code of Military Justice instead.
I believe the affront is to U.S. citizens. Perhaps those demonstrating or rallying against the government. A slow weakening of the 5th amendment may allow government officials to question anyone they consider a threat just a bit more harshly or differently than the Constitution intended.
Rights of the Accused – The Sixth Amendment
..and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
As this article in the Telegraph points out, the legal precedent has been set.
The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.
Clearly, the Supreme Court feels that the right to counsel begins at the moment of questioning. Whether or not the accused has been informed of his rights, the right to counsel is immediate. As the article continues Obama’s Justice Department disagrees.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision “serves no real purpose” and offers only “meagre benefits”.
Yeah, that Kagan. Imagine what her opinion of our “meagre” rights will mean once she’s confirmed as a justice on the Supreme Court.
Unenumerated Rights – The Ninth Amendment
Obamacare forces us to buy health insurance under penalty of law and a fine. Congress does not have the enumerated power to force us to purchase anything. Any right not expressly enumerated in the Constitution is by default protected as a right of the States or Citizens.
States’ Rights/Federalism – The Tenth Amendment
Between health care reform and the immigration flap in Arizona, State’s rights are being crushed at every turn. The tyrants in the administration believe that a centrally-managed, powerful central government is the only tolerable end. The means are irrelevant.
This is not about clinging to guns or a bible, big companies influencing our officials, or any of the other motives the progressives would have you believe. It’s about those God-given natural and inalienable rights that every free man and woman are born with. They are not awarded to you by the Constitution nor the government, but both should were formed to protect them.
The elitists in D.C. are systematically, calculatingly, intentionally nibbling away at your rights. If you do not stop them at the first bite.. scream not when those liberties have been swallowed whole – you probably won’t be allowed to.