Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Friday, November 30, 2012

BoR Inviolate - Changing a single syllable is Treason

Here is a brief comment left to me by Hans in comments on another thread.  It deserves a full post:

Sir, you make the claim: "The first ten Amendments are not open to the Amendment process of the Constitution."

I believe that statement is incorrect. The body of the Constitution and all subsequent amendments are subject to modification by the amendment process.

I did, in fact, claim that the first ten amendments are inviolate, excluded from the Amendment process.

Let's consider it for a moment.  We all consider the BoR to be a list of Natural Rights - Rights that may never be restricted or infringed by Government, correct?  Indeed, during ratification of the Constitution, some Framers demanded that the BoR be added so that absolutely no clever games could be played with the topics at hand.  Other Framers took the position that the Natural Rights enumerated in the proposed BoR were so obvious and innately within the Constitution, to add the BoR would be redundant.  Many States made it clear - add the BoR or we do not ratify the Constitution.

With me so far?

One of the most closely held open secrets regarding the US Constitution, more guarded than nullification, more guarded than the right to secede, and even more obvious because it exists in black and white, is the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

You won't find the Preamble to the BoR in most history books, even in many law schools.  I am friends with an 82 year old attorney who practiced for 60 years, and he lost an embarassing bet.  He claimed I was an idiot, that there was no Preamble to the Bill of Rights.  Indeed, in the government issued image at the head of this post of the BoR, the Preamble is omitted.

Here's the text:

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions 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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


Study the highlighted and bolded text.  ...further declaratory and restrictive clauses...

That means you may not screw with the BoR in the Amendment process.  That means every single infringement of 2A is a blatant act of Treason.  That means Hans' cited 14th Amendment that changed the 10th Amendment is void and without the force of law, for it is unlawful.

Please note my language: These things MAY NOT be done.  I did not say they CAN NOT be done - obviously, Bad People did the Bad Things.  But that doesn't make it lawful.

One may no more amend 2A than one may strike 9A and 10A and change the republic to a Monarchy.

Before you get hung up on the last sentence of the Preamble ...ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution... keep it in perspective.  The Framers needed to use the lawful mechanism of Amendment to add the BoR, but declatory and restrictive prevent Fifth Article reversal.

Some of you may disagree with me, especially some of you lawyers, because you went to law school, afterall, and they never told you about it.  They also probably told you nullification was unlawful and they definitely told you they derived the power (the Judiciary) of Judicial Review of all cases as part of Article Three, when the fact is the Judiciary usurped the power of Judicial Review in Marbury.

So, my friends, BoR may NOT be touched.  They CAN do it, but they are wrong, and deserve a Traitors death for doing it.



  1. I like your distinction between "may" and "can;" that's sort of what I've been writing about all along. Naturally, I'd say people could use a little refinement in understanding exactly what the source of that "may" is.

    Ironically, your highlighted clause is evidence AGAINST your stand on Constitutionalism. If you hire a construction company "in order to build our strong homesteads of the Citadel" and they show up with only styrofoam, what are you gonna do?

  2. Sam:

    Just so you know...I agree with you, so guttings are not necessary.

    I'm just a dumb truck driver, so go easy on me, but...

    The way I understand the definition of "preamble," it is nothing more than an explanatory introduction to the body of text which follows and has "no force of law" to that following body of text.

    I am not a lawyer and your mileage may vary.


    1. Even if we set aside the Natural Laws aspect (which are inviolate) the Preamble would carry at least as much weight as the Federalist Papers. ;)


  3. Sir, I offer your words for your careful consideration: "Please don't take it as a personal rebuke - your mistake is very, very common in America..."

    We are in agreement that Rights of man SHALL BE inviolable; on that we need no further debate.

    However, there is no procedural protection in the Constitution for the partial enumeration of such Rights known commonly as the Bill of Rights.

    There is nothing in the text of the preamble you quote that places these " ...further declaratory and restrictive clauses..."
    , Amendments 1 through 10, outside the scope of the Amendment Process.

    We may believe strongly that such fundamental infringement is treason, but that is not the strict definition of Treason as defined in Article 3 Section 3.

    In closing, we are in agreement regarding the inviolability of mans' Rights. We are in disagreement regarding the inviolability of the protections afforded those Rights by the procedures in our Constitution.

    (in the NC woods)

    1. Hans: So, we disagree on a procedural technicality, but we'd both shoot the SOB if we caught him, right? ;)


    2. I believe we are debating something more important than mere procedural technicality.

      I'm forcing the distinction between a "strict construction" approach to the Constitution and one which allows "interpretation".

      One cannot claim to be a Constitutionalist and also argue like a progressive. [I know, that stings, but it's within the family and not a poke in the eye with a sharp stick :>) ]

      That said, we do indeed agree that we will hold the unalienable Rights of man inviolate.

      Best Regards,

    3. Hans: OK - a strict construction approach would demand that since the first 10 Amendments are re-statements of Natural Law, untouchable by Government, that Government may not touch them, even by Amendment.

      Either something is inalienable, or it is not. No middle ground. Government may not make rape permissible by Amendment, or any other malum in se act. "Government shall make no law..." means that Government shall make no law, either by magical indian water dance or amendment process.


    4. "I'm forcing the distinction between a 'strict construction' approach to the Constitution and one which allows 'interpretation'.

      "One cannot claim to be a Constitutionalist and also argue like a progressive."

      That sounds familiar, Hans. I think the general form is, "You can't have A and not-A simultaneously." Sam and I have gone over this a few times, but I reckon he's tiring of me lately.

      Most people usually do, when it starts to matter.

    5. Actually guys - I just don't agree or think I am trying to keep a foot in both worlds.

      The BoR does not grant Rights, it simply illustrates them. They are inviolate, inalienable, they can not be taken by Man.

      To then say they can be Amended out of existence just doesn't compute with my lower brain.


    6. To Jim and Sam -

      Yes, this is when and where things start to matter.

      The BoR merely identifies a subset of mans' unalienable Rights which the general government is obligated to protect.

      No warranty is made to protect ALL unalienable Rights of Man. Notably absent in the BoR is absolute protection for private property (allodial title).

      Do you think this was a mere oversight of the Hamiltonians / Federalists and their progressive progeny?

      The BoR merely protects those Rights that folks in the period 1798-1791 believed were most at risk in the context of their time and politics.

      Done beating this horse ... :>)


    7. Again, I may need to get on the small bus, but if a Right is unalienable, not to be revoked by any but God, I don't see how any man can agree that Government has a moral authority to amend that Right granted by God.

      You just can't get there from here.


  4. Thank you for making this point clear!

    Even for those of us who hold the COTUS and BoR as the truth of Law, this is a new revelation to many (including myself). You still learn new things every day. This only strengthens my resolve for the III Coongress!

  5. "The BoR does not grant Rights, it simply illustrates them. They are inviolate, inalienable, they can not be taken by Man."

    Right! Or, in your even better wording, they may not be taken by Man. As we've seen, they can be taken.

    We've never had any dispute, you know except when you replace this principle with something else. I know you see it as a "package deal," such that the principle can't exist without what you see as the only means, but that's wrong. The principle is the principle.

    "To then say they can be Amended out of existence just doesn't compute with my lower brain."

    That must be your strong part! It shouldn't compute because you're firm on the principle. You're just tying the means to the end, that's all. Not to be trite, but there's more than one way to skin a cat.

    Plus, I think you're under a misapprehension that most "anti-Constitutionalists" seek to have a different Constitution or something. While I can't speak for whomever those people are, in my experience that's not right. From what I've seen, their point is more often that the principles should be considered separate and apart from any document that supposedly codifies them. And they're right about that, irrespective of whether or not you personally can imagine any other way to get there.

    Now I suppose you could cite CA and his various "changes" from the other day, but really he was speaking in principle only. And indeed, I'm bettin' you AGREE with whatever principles he was citing.

    Basically--and I mean to be descriptive here, not judgmental--you're being what's known as "concrete-bound." That means that you're stuck on the instantiation of the principle rather than the principle itself. On matters such as these, especially with zillions of different people and minds involved, that can be seriously problematic. Every cat is different, right?

    Besides, this ain't shit. Wait till everyone's got to deal with the principle of Rule of Law itself!

    1. Jim - thank you for your persistance

      The core of this debate, and the primary rift, relates to the difference between abstract principles and the instantiation of those principles in a specific written contract, e.g. the charter for a general government.

      In the abstract, "the principles are the principles". They may not be completely enumerated, as for example the incomplete list of Rights in our DoI. Yet we acknowledge that men have certain unalienable Rights without which they would be less than men ... abstract.

      A specific instance, a written contract, the charter for a government, may or may not meet a test of 'necessary and sufficient' to establish an obligation to protect fundamental Rights of men. In our case, the BoR has an obvious deficiency in that it does not even attempt to address a complete set of Rights.

      A charter with a deficiency merely means that men must seek means other than government to defend and protect certain Rights inherent in their humanity. I choose to defend my Right to life, liberty and property regardless of the anarchy or tyranny that may exist around me.

      Amendment, as a procedural tools of the charter, may be used to strengthen or weaken a governments' obligation to provide protection(s). Again this doesn't change the fundamental Rights inherent in men, it merely indicates to what extent one can rely on a specific government to address encroachments on Rights.

      In Liberty,

    2. Well, I don't dichotomize quite like that. The principles are abstract, yes, but they still are as they are. That's more the point I was making, because I think it's the principles that matter here. As I meant it, the so-called instantiation (or means) is quite distinct from the principles, as opposed to being "some other part of them" or even a "unit" of them. I'm sure I wasn't clear about that, probably by overstating my agreement with Sam about principles. I mean, I do agree with the principles he cares about, but there are some more that I think trump even those.

      Another thing I agree with Sam about, is that it can be very easy to overthink stuff like this. I'm a big fan of simple.

      OTOH, since we're dealing with very important principles, it can be easy to underthink it too! In any event, as I respect the wishes of owners of things that aren't mine, that's all I'll have to say on the matter, at least here, now. If you really want to pursue it further, there's a philosophy section at the zerogov forum.

  6. Jim & Hans: One of the biggest problems facing the restoration of Liberty is the tendency for smart people to over-think the obvious.

    If a Right is bestowed by God, and recognized as such by our Framers (who respected God at every opportunity), the sheer hubris required of these same men to say "We can simply Amend God's will with Article Five", especially in light of ALL their other positions on the topics of both unalienable and inalienable Rights is simply incomprehensible.

    On this topic, gentlemen, both of you are missing basic common sense and ignoring the words that were written in the preamble by men who were determined to protect God's Laws.

    Let's agree to disagree and move on, please.


  7. I agree with K..To many Attorney Minded over-thinking the wording. It looks pretty damn clear to me and the ENTIRE Constitution's intent was outlined as we all know in the various writings of our founders, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. It's lawyers who twisted the intent and meanings of the beautifully written words or our Founders. Bottom line. Our Govt operates ALMOST ENTIRELY out of the context of Constitutional rule of law. We can talk till we're blue in the face but we all know it will ultimately have to be taken back by force. Right now the patriot community seems divided and leaderless and I don't know about you but when I was in the Army I was taught that's a recipe for defeat. We need to come together and come together fast if we have ANY CHANCE of getting back to our lawful form of Government. Stop squabbling of semantics and let's get this done.

    1. Enough already.A - fucking - men


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.