Some
people ask if the Second Amendment applies to the State and local
governments. Some people have the feeling
that the purpose of the Second Amendment is a limitation on
federal action "only", and that the states do not fall under its
sphere of authority. This is not a correct
evaluation of the Second Amendment.
<>
Some
people think that the courts have the right to apply the Second
Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment and this
would require even more erosion to states rights. The damage that
the 14th Amendment has caused is due to its overall misconstruction,
and particularly, in Section I of the 14th.
The 14th Amendment has been used to
satisfy the imperialistic federal thirst to consolidate all authority
over the states unto itself.
The reason that the Constitution was
amended by the addition of the first 10 Articles (the Bill of Rights)
was due to the great lectures for about three weeks, delivered by
Patrick Henry in the Virginia State House. The
10 Articles comprising the Bill of Rights were ratified by all 13
states after the foresight and the enlightenment bestowed upon them by
Patrick Henry. Until the Bill of Rights
was added, the Constitution was slated to end up as a monarchy as it
had offered no written protection for the rights of the people.
Patrick
Henry presented many criticisms relative to the Constitution without
a Bill of Rights. Fortunately, he was
victorious in his efforts, which is why we now have a proper
understanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
The inclusion of the Bill of Rights as a part of the
Constitution has rightfully acclaimed it to be the most magnificent
document ever struck off by the hand of man; provided, that the people
fulfill their obligations and responsibilities to the system.
The
founding fathers did not write about things that did not exist. Keep in mind that the founding fathers could
not issue a prohibition on a given subject without stating the
existence of the particular subject matter concerned. The Bill of Rights was acknowledged as a confirmation
of our God-given rights. After Patrick
Henry expounded upon the lack of provisions necessary to guard the
natural rights of the people, it was the view of the states that these
rights were inviolate and they were ratified in December 1791.
When the
14th Amendment
was written, the federal government wrongfully seized the position of
being the “enforcer” of the Bill of Rights, when in all reality, the
“enforcement” was actually being levied against
the federal government.
Are you aware that before the Bill
of Rights became attached to the Constitution it was actually a
separate document of its own self, with its own Preamble, which
began as follows:
“The
Convention of a number of the States, having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory
and restrictive clauses should be added: And
as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will
best insure the beneficent ends of its institution:”
Notice it
says “declaratory” and “restrictive”.
The founders were establishing existence and
protection for the most endangered rights by declaring them
essential. So, as you see, the Bill of
Rights is also a positive source that confirms, documents, and guards
the existence of these essential rights of the people.
This endowment from the Creator was encased in a
non-repealable palladium.
While
guarding against federal encroachments, the authors of the Bill of
Rights certainly were not bent upon allowing their
own states to encroach or violate these rights and provisions. Henry made sure that the linchpin of all
liberty, the right to arms, would no longer go unrecorded! In other words, at the same time that the
rights of the people and powers of the state were being confirmed,
they were also being enshrined as a prohibition primarily upon federal
powers.
Yes, the barrier was placed upon the
federal government, but the founders, representing the states at that
time, did not leave state officials able to do what they had
forbid the federal government from doing! That
would not make sense! The people of the 13
states and their state representatives made sure those rights listed in
the Bill of Rights applied to all of the people in all of the states.
The states compiled the Bill of
Rights, as they believed it to be self-evident that these were the
endowments from the Creator. This is a
verification that these rights are unalienable, deserving of a sacred
storehouse so that no man could violate them. Rights
given to man by the Creator are beyond the purview and prerogative of
our fellow man to alter or violate.
Federal
use of the 14th Amendment “to apply the
Bill of Rights to the states” was totally unnecessary! That was connived for the enhancement
of federal control over the states. All
that was really necessary was to pass a federal law, declaring the
blacks as being full citizens, which in turn, would declare blacks as
free men with full citizenship. As
citizens they would automatically be recognized to have the protection
of the Bill of Rights just as all of the people were since 1791. Nothing more needed to have been said;
however, the courts began to interpret Section I of the 14th
Amendment as a revision of federal power wherein the federal government
could expand its authority over the states, and unjustly take
superiority over them. Wrongfully, the
tail began to wag the dog! What Patrick
Henry feared would happen, has come to pass because the people have
failed in their responsibility to issue an amendment with proper
wording to end slavery.
There
never was any need for the federal government to seize the position
that they held authority to “make the Bill of Rights apply to the
States” via a deceptive Amendment. After
the 14th Amendment was so poorly drafted, the federal
government “assumed” and “created” for themselves an authority over the
States that has grown increasingly more seditious.
Attached is a 3-page summary sheet of some of the
points Patrick Henry made in those three weeks when he stopped the
ratification of the Constitution and forced adoption of the Bill of
Rights.
Henry railed long and hard over
allowing the federal government to take control over the militia, the collective
right of the people to keep and bear arms. (It
was by use of the militia that they won their independence and
established liberty.) “Your guns are
gone!” he chastised them during this time. He
demonstrated that the federal government would have all power
and the people would have no power (authority).
He warned that their liberty would be wrested from
them. Freedom of speech, albeit an
essential, would not be adequate to do the job of protecting their
authority. He told them that they had to
retain their arms as a form of force lest they be ruined! It was necessary that an understanding be made
that another function of the militia existed that was beyond
the reach of federal power. The Second
Amendment clarified that need.
Patrick Henry told it like it is! It is easy to see why the
socialist/globalist/change artists have dropped him from the history
classes in the schools of recent times. The
federal government, which long sought to control the schools, and now
does so through the United Nations (U.N.E.S.C.O.), never wanted to
allow future Patrick Henrys to spring up!
The dual purpose of the Bill of
Rights is further evidenced by the fact that twelve states entered the
Union without a provision for the keystone amendment, the
Second Amendment. The efforts of Patrick
Henry in demanding a force to protect their liberties made the
right to arms subject so clear and all encompassing that it gave them
security. After his orations, the states,
which had not yet signed in on the new Constitution, began attaching to
their Act of Admission to the Union their own suggestions for rights
they wanted to be entered as a part of the on-coming Bill of Rights.
Of the twelve states that entered
into the Union without a provision for firearms in their state
constitutions, four were members of the Thirteen Original
States. Those four original states were:
Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Maryland. Eight
additional states entered into the Union without a provision for
firearms in their state constitutions long after the battle over the
federal 1787 Constitution had been settled. They
were: West Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin,
Minnesota, North Dakota, Nevada, Nebraska, and California.
After Patrick Henry’s successful
demand in 1788 that a Bill of Rights be provided in the new
Constitution for the 13 original states, all of the 37 states
that later entered the Union included a provision in their own “Act
of Admission to the Union” to cover their need.
The provision stated that they were being “admitted
into the Union on an equal footing with the original states in all
respects whatsoever”. Attached
you will find two sheets giving the exact wording that was used by each
of those 37 states. This is strong
evidence to support what was meant by the declaratory and restrictive
wording inscribed in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
Where else will you
find included in the federal Constitution the satisfaction of the
demand that was made for a documented statement of man’s
unalienable rights except for in the Bill of Rights?
After such vigorous heated discussions over (1) the
need to limit the ability of the federal government to invade,
usurp, and destroy the authority and rights of the people, and (2) the
need to document and confirm the existence of unalienable rights
of the people (their endowments from the Creator,
including those powers the people were willing to vest in their own
state houses) did it become possible to continue ratifications for
adoption of the Constitution. The
Bill of Rights is a very powerful form of law.
As to the existing 14th
Amendment, Sections 3, 4 and 5 cause one to chuckle in view of the fact
that there is so much blatant tyranny and sedition occurring in this
country today! Insurrection and rebellion
against our proper system should cause all those federal public
officials to be denied any salary who are constantly giving aid and
comfort to our enemies. They have
taken an oath to abide by the Constitution. Such
claims for payment of services (salaries) should be held illegal and
void, like it states in these Sections.
In view
of current conditions, and the threat against the right to arms of the
people, I feel that the best move which could be made is a strong push
for revitalization of the true militia – the “enrolled militia” – the
people-at-large – which does not mean the National Guard nor the troops
– but the ordinary people, the farmers, the business men, the teachers,
etc. (the like of which George Washington took out to train in
proficiency with arms for the protection of their liberty).
This is
conclusive evidence, that the Bill of Rights has a dual nature: (1) It
confirms the people’s right to arms, individually and collectively, and
(2) It restricts the federal government from interfering with or
denying the use of those rights belonging to the people.
Bernadine
Smith, National Director
Second
Amendment Committee
SOME OF THE CRITICAL
REMARKS MADE BY
PATRICK HENRY
WHILE HE WAS OPPOSING
THE CONSTITUTION
WHEN IT WAS
UNGUARDED BY A BILL OF
RIGHTS.
This
Constitution will trample on your fallen liberty. It
squints toward monarchy. It will convert us to one solid empire.
This Constitution
substitutes a consolidated in lieu of a confederated government, and
this threatens the total annihilation of the state sovereignties. It will lead to a consolidation of the states
into one consolidated government instead of a confederation of the
states.
When government removes your
armaments, you will have NO power but government will have ALL power! What will you do when evil men take office?
You are writing
this Constitution as if only good men will take office.
When evil men take
office, the whole gang will be in collusion. They will keep the people
in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade. *
A standing army we
shall have, also to execute the execrable commands of tyranny.
Your guns are gone! What resistance could be made?
Will you assemble
and just tell them? Even if you
could assemble, how will you enforce rightful punishment when due? Your guns are gone!
My great objection
to this government is that it does not leave us the means of defending
our rights, or waging war against tyrants. Have we the means of
resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is
put in the hand of the congress?......
Oh, sir, we should have fine times,
indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only necessary to assemble the
people.
Let Mr. Madison
tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were
given up from the people? Unless a miracle
shall interpose, no nation ever did, nor ever can, retain its liberty
after the loss of the sword and the purse.
Guard with jealous
attention the public liberty! Suspect everyone who approaches that
jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force, and
whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined!
They are being
allowed too much money. They are being given too much power.
The power of the
federal courts would swell the patronage of the president.
The president will
lead in the treason. Your militia will leave you and fight against you.
The clause before
you gives a power of direct taxation unbounded and unlimited.
Your laws on
impeachment are a sham and a mockery due to mutual implication of
government officials.
The cession of the
whole treaty-making power to the president and the senate is one of the
most fearful features in this Constitution, as they can enter into the
most ruinous of foreign engagements.
The pay of the
members is to be fixed by themselves without limit or restraint.
You are not to
inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a
great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured! For liberty ought to be the direct end of
government.
Will the
abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your
liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all
earthly blessings - give us that precious jewel and you may take
everything else.
The adoption of
this instrument has been maintained upon the ground that it would
increase our military strength. You are negligently suffering our
liberty to be wrested from us.
Even if you could
assemble, how will you enforce rightful punishment when due? Oh, Sir,
we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only
necessary to assemble the people. A standing army we shall have, also
to execute the execrable commands of tyranny.
The policy or
impolicy of any provision does not depend upon itself alone, but on
other provisions with which it stands connected.
<>I am not well versed in History, but I will submit to
your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the
licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of the rulers.
I imagine, sir, that you will find the balance
on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be, if you, miss the fate of
those nations, who omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently
suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under
intolerable despotism!
Let not gentlemen
be told that ‘it is not safe to reject this government’.
Wherefore is it not safe? To
encourage us to adopt it, they tell us, that there is a plain easy way
of getting amendments. When I come to
contemplate this part, I suppose that I am mad, or that my countrymen
are so. The way to amendments is, in my
conception - - shut!
“Hence it appears
that 3/4th of the states must ultimately agree to any amendments that
may be necessary. Let us consider the
consequence of this. Let us suppose (for
the case is supposable, possible and probable) that you happen to deal
these powers to unworthy hands; will they relinquish powers already in
their possession, or agree to amendments? 2/3rds
of the Congress, or of the state legislatures are necessary even to
propose amendments. If one-third of these
be unworthy men, they may prevent the application for amendments; but a
destructive and mischievous feature is, that 3/4ths of the state
legislatures, or of the state conventions, must concur in the
amendments when proposed. In such numerous
bodies, there must necessarily be some designing bad men!”
The least you can do
is guard this Constitution with a Bill of Rights!
Patrick Henry
The brunt of the
battle fell on Henry alone. Madison and others were accusing him of
disunion. Henry told them that the
dissolution of the Union was abhorrent to his mind.
He considered himself a sentinel over the rights of
the people, their liberties and happiness. He declared that even if
twelve states had adopted the 1787 Constitution as it was without a
Bill of Rights, he would still reject it.
