Is it the U.S. Government's responsibility to
protect and
uphold its citizen's constitutional Rights?
By Wolfeman77346
Aug 13 2008
Although government promotes itself endlessly as our indispensable "protector" and principle guardian of our Constitutional Rights, it's not true.
Nevertheless, that self-promotion has effectively
conditioned most Americans to believe our Constitutional Rights are respected
and vigorously protected by government and public servants. Unfortunately, only
a few people realize that government does not automatically protect our Rights,
that our inclination to trust government is dangerously misguided, and that our
ignorance of our Rights encourages government to abuse those Rights.
The relationship between any government and its citizens is, and has always
been, at best, ADVERSARIAL: individual Rights are inversely proportional to
government power. The more power the government has, the fewer Rights you have.
Government can't grow in size or power except at the cost of our individual
Rights and freedom.
The founding fathers also realized that all governments seek
to expand their powers and are therefore driven to diminish their citizen's
Rights. Hence, the Constitution was written to both limit government and
maximize our individual Rights.
In truth, the American Constitution is essentially an anti-government document.
The Constitution's principle purpose is not simply to specify our individual
Rights, but to shield us from the single organization that will always pose the
greatest threat to those Rights: our own government. That's why we have three
branches of government, checks and balances, elections every two years, the
opportunity to call constitutional conventions, the Right to jury trials, and
the Right to keep and bear arms - each political mechanism was designed to
empower the public to restrict government and thereby to protect the people
against government's inevitable urge to tyranny.
If the principle enemy of any people is their own government, and if the
principle defender of the American people is the American Constitution, then it
follows that the first enemy of our government is our Constitution. Government
understands this conflict, but tries to conceal it from the public by claiming
to be the only interpreter and protector of the Constitution.
But if only the
government interprets the Constitution, then those interpretations are typically
biased to empower government -- the Constitution's archenemy -- at the expense
of the people.
Given the conflict between government and our Constitution, it follows that:
1) The government is not interested in protecting the Constitution;
2) Although the government uses the Constitution to legitimize itself, it's
principle interest is in DESTROYING the Constitution; and
3) That the only party able to truly protect and defend YOUR Rights is YOU.
Sound far-fetched? It's not. Even the courts agree.
The individual Rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or
ignored by our government.
For example, in US. vs.Johnson (76 Fed Supp. 538),
Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the
passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one
indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only
by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid
only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs.
Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush.
594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 ![]()
Note the verdict's confrontational language: "fighting",
"combat", and most surprising, "belligerent". Did you ever
expect to ever read a Federal Court condemn citizens for being
"passive" or "ignorant"? Did you ever expect to see a
verdict that encouraged citizens to be "belligerent" IN COURT...?
Better go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And
commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American
legal system.
The court ruled that the Constitutional Right against self-incrimination is NOT
automatically guaranteed to any citizen by any government branch or official.
Moreover, despite the government's usual propaganda, this Right is NOT available
to all persons: It is not available to the "passive", the
"ignorant", or the "indifferent". Nor can this Right be
claimed by an attorney on behalf of his client. The Right against
self-incrimination is available only to the knowledgeable, "belligerent
claimant", to the individual willing to engage in "sustained
combat" to FIGHT for his RIGHT.
Government is obligated to recognize your Constitutional Right against
self-incrimination only if you fight for that right. Our courts are free to
ignore this Right for any citizen who is
1) Ignorant of his Right and/or
2) Lacks the courage to fight for his Right. Therefore, anyone who trusts the
courts (or even his own lawyer) to protect his Constitutional Right against
self-incrimination is a fool and may pay a fool's price.
If one of our Constitutional Rights is only available to citizens who are both
knowledgeable and belligerent, how are the balances of our Rights any different?
They're not.
Fundamentally, if you don't know your Rights, the court is under no obligation
to inform you, or to protect your Rights. Even if you know your Rights, but lack
the guts to fight for them, again, the court is not obligated to protect you. If
you are superior to the Government, then why SHOULD they be obligated to inform
their Master? Ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE! In the same respect, if the
executive or legislative branch violates the Constitution, it is our duty to
fight to restore the limitations provided by the constitution.
In fact, your ignorance or passivity legally empowers your adversary to exploit
you in court. If the opposing side tries to
That's the way our courts really are: The ignorant and the passive can be
routinely railroaded and abused without ever understanding that the cause for
their abuse is their own ignorance or cowardice.
Our cowardice and fear of the courts typically entices us to "play
nice" with the judge. But that's exactly the wrong strategy because by
"playing nice", we become accomplices in our own destruction. By not
objecting and defying the courts, we implicitly approve, validate, and accept
whatever injustice the court cares to dispense on our lives. By not fighting, we
give the government license to destroy us.
The key to a successful defense of our Rights is not to kiss up to the judge
with yes-your-honor's, no-your-honor's, and pray-the-court's, but to stand up
and belligerently defy the system.
Given that the government does not defend our Rights, what's a reasonable person
to do?
Clearly, we must do SOMETHING, for as Edmund Burke said, "The only thing
necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." But apathy
isn't simply a function of cowardice or indifference; "apathy" is a
synonym for "ignorance".
Ignorance makes the public more "manageable" in the courts and in
confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to
expand its powers at the expense of the citizen's Rights, government has a
vested interest in the public's ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest in
expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even
false, education on what our Rights should be.
So first, you must learn your Constitutional Rights. If you don't know what your
Rights are, you can't "fight" for them.
Second, given the reality of American education, you can't rely on the state to
teach you anything other than basic vocational training. Therefore, you must
study your rights, learn about law, history and EDUCATE YOURSELF.
Third, teach your friends and neighbors. It's not enough to know YOUR Rights.
You must also know and respect your neighbor's. Like-wise, your neighbor must
learn to know and respect his, and you’re Rights, too. Our chances of
compelling government to concede our Rights are hugely improved when the general
public also understands and respects those Rights.
Fourth, knowledge alone is not enough: once you know your Rights, find the
courage to fight for them. Courage ("belligerence") is the final
requirement to secure your Rights. Fight for YOUR Rights, and more, learn to
respect others, no matter how seemingly bizarre, who also fight for THEIR
Rights. Make no mistake -- anyone who's fighting for HIS Rights, is also
fighting for YOURS. He's entitled to your respect.
Fifth, don't trust the government. Recognize the true nature of a citizen's
relationship to government is ADVERSARIAL. All governments naturally seek to
expand their powers at the cost of their citizen's Rights, both nationally and
internationally. This has been true since time began and will not change in this
life. You have what they want: personal power (and as consequence, freedom from
government authority). Trusting the government has already enslaved us. It is up
to us to break these bonds and restore true liberty and freedom.
The most effective tyrannies begin by luring their subjects with carrots. Only
later, after the people are addicted to government and weak, will they use the
stick to compel public obedience.
America thrived for nearly two centuries based on the Constitution's mandate of
limited government/maximum freedom. But limited government demands personal
self-reliance. As government has grown in size with the carrots of welfare,
entitlements, and special interest programs, the public has become increasingly
dependent of the government, and the nation has declined.
This is America, boys and girls. It's more than a piece of land; it's a
political miracle -- the only nation in the world with an anti-government
Constitution. But this miracle is conditional and dependant on the knowledge,
courage, and self-reliance of its citizens. Freedom will not flourish in a
nation of ignorant fools and irresponsible weaklings. To live free takes
knowledge, nerve, and personal responsibility.
From http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/911242