Liberty might not be what you were taught. You might need to rethink your worldview.
Is Liberty a blessing?
The framers of the U.S. government wrote in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution that the federal government was established to secure the blessings of liberty.
Although liberty would be a blessing, today we have no blessings of liberty. So, what happened?
The lack of liberty is not caused by the structure of government. The lack of liberty is because almost everyone voluntarily consented to be governed. We were tricked out of our rights by legalities we did not understand. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one.
Failing to stand firm.
The English word “apostate” or “apostasy” comes from the original Greek words meaning failure to stand firm. You had a duty to stand firm. Failing to correct your government abandons your duty to correct them.
- Ab assuetis non fit injuria according to Black’s Law Dictionary “From things in which there has been long acquiescence, no legal injury or wrong arises.”
- The US Supreme Court ruled in a 1913 case, German Alliance Insurance Co. v. Kansas, 233 U.S. 389 at page 432 that, by your inaction, criminals can interpret your laws for you: These laws “permitting what theretofore had been regarded both as an ecclesiastical and civil offense. … therefore fall within the rule that contemporary practice, if subsequently continued and universally acquiesced in, amounts to an interpretation of the Constitution.”
— Notice that it was criminals that interpreted your Constitution, because your great-grandfathers failed to stand firm.
- 13 AmJur Proof of Facts 3d, 21: “Without having been directly authorized, tacitly encouraged, or even inadequately trained, police officers, like other public employees, may fall into patterns of unconstitutional conduct. This can result from a variety of factors not sufficiently traceable in origin to any fault of “municipal policy” in the Monell sense (Monell v Dept. of Social Services (1978) 436 US 658, and Soell v McDaniel (1987 CA4 NC) 824 F2d 1380). If these unconstitutional practices become sufficiently widespread, however, they may assume the quality of “custom or usage” which has the force of law…”
Now that almost everyone has consented to be governed, the government can assume that you also abandoned your rights. This is based on our inaction to correct a wrong.
Every tolerated Government overreach only worsens our condition of servitude for everyone. Failure to stand up for traditional Americana only encourages the bullies. By failing to stand up to government bullies you make it worse for your posterity – even though you were told the Constitution would secure their blessings of Liberty. You now have the burden to prove that you did not waive your rights.
Also note that the framers had an alternate agenda when they wrote the Constitution. The original federal government created free and independent States – that the Declaration declared. Five years later, the ratified Constitution made them dependent.
If the framers of government had their clear goal of the blessings of liberty, why is there so much confusion and chaos today?
Why can’t liberty be the answer to all constitutional questions we face today?
First. The word “Liberty” can mean opposite things to different people. Abe Lincoln said so in his address at Baltimore in 1864.
“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names liberty and tyranny.”
Second. Those who consented to be governed have no expectation of liberty. Example: those who enlist in the military have no right to their own free-will. And certainly no right to safety.
But you consented to be governed and you still expect liberty. Lose your illusions and the heavens will open up as the haze of confusion disappears.
Third. The U.S. Constitution was written to control the federal government. It was not written to control you. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to you. Examples:
- In 1799 Vice President Jefferson told the people of Kentucky that they were subject to only three federal laws (the three crimes mentioned in the Constitution) and no other federal crimes whatsoever. If more than three federal laws apply to you, try to figure out how you consented to be governed.
- The U.S. Supreme Court tells us that the first eight Amendments do not apply to State citizens (Twinning v. NJ and in Hague v. CIO) . That’s right. The Bill of Rights does not protect you unless you voluntarily submit yourself to such a form of government.
- The U.S. Supreme Court tells us that State governments must protect their people from the federal government. (Ex Parte Mulligan)
- Federal bankruptcy laws do not protect you either, until you consent to be governed and waived all your rights.
Are lawmakers required to obey their oaths-of-office to secure the blessings of liberty?
Yes, lawmakers and judges are obliged to their oaths-of-office to secure the Blessings of Liberty. But they are also obliged to enforce contracts – even presumed contracts. And they are obligated to take away the rights of criminals, paupers and vagabonds. And the executive branch has a duty to prevent injury to interests the state may lawfully protect.
Many people complain about unconstitutional laws. But all unconstitutional laws are null and void from the beginning. And it is illegal for anyone in government to deny you a right, benefit or privilege provided by law. To get a real understanding of what happened to your rights, keep studying.
Lawmakers cannot use their parliamentary procedures to agree to commit mutiny against lawful authority – no matter how many laws you think are unconstitutional.
Why are so many people confused by this blessing of liberty?
As George Orwell predicted: freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength. Actually the Bible predicted that wrong will be right, and right wrong. Orwell also warned us that the future of mankind will be a boot stomping on your face forever.
Just as the word “Liberty” means different things to different people — The word “justice” also means different things to different people. As does mercy, equality, equity, duty, and even truth. Do not be confused. Laws, as written, must be clear. Laws are void if ambiguous or vague. Laws that seem overly broad to effect a lawful goal must not be interpreted as such.
So how do we know what the lawmakers really intended when they legislated the blessing of liberty? – Answer: study the legal words of statutory construction. You might find that the law you are studying does not apply to you, or that it is enforced in an overly broad manner.
Many people think that liberty is freedom from a restriction. Although it includes freedom from restriction, it was originally freedom from compulsion. Liberty is the God-given right to your free-will. The three rights of all mankind are freedom from all known methods of compulsion. YES, when you were created equal, you had liberty from tyranny. If you had remained equal, courts would protect you from Government.
Government agents are restricted by the bonds of the Constitution. You are not restricted except you are bound to what you agreed to, even if you don’t understand what you agreed to.
Here is the U.S. Supreme Court’s partial definition of the term Liberty in Meyer v. Nebraska:
US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, at page 399:
The term Liberty “… denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience… the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.”
Liberty from Tyranny.
“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins”. (John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, paragraph 202)
Liberty from tyrannical government is built into the structure of government. The Constitution has powerful constraints on the federal government, such as separation of powers.
One of the checks and balances in the constitution was required by Article 2, Section 1 “The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be President, … after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be Vice President.” (this was later clarified by the 12th Amendment)
That’s right. the President of the United States and the Vice President were to be selected from the same list of presidential candidates. When someone is running for president, he might just as easily end up as vice president in the administration of a rival who got more votes than he did. The second runner up in the popularity contest would be Vice President. What a concept. A strangle-hold on unlimited power.
And the 14th Amendment section 2 requires the census count to be reduced by the number of voters who cannot vote to elect people to the electoral college. What a concept. Representatives in congress (and direct taxes) would be very limited to only representing voters with real power. This is not what we have today. Today, you cannot vote for an elector to the electoral college.
After the 14th Amendment, States were obligated to allow federal control of “courts” by the Supreme Law of the Land. More about this later.
The preamble to the Bill of Rights says that it imposes further restrictions on government. The Bill of Rights only lists a very few of the thousands of unalienable rights that are protected against government intrusion. And even those are not understood today. Freedom of speech is restricted. Freedom of religion is restricted. Gun keeping is restricted. Miranda’s famous right to remain silent isn’t so clear anymore. Fourth Amendment restrictions on Searches and seizures do not seem to apply to civil asset forfeiture or to certain currency transactions. And when your debtor declares bankruptcy government will impair the obligation of your contract.
Liberty from invasion?
Liberty from our own government’s oppression would be useless if we are conquered by invaders. So the Constitution also provided for the common defense.
Throughout history, the U.S. government had the power to draft men into the military. You had to submit to being drafted into the military where you have no liberty. This complete loss of the blessings of liberty is Constitutional.
Obviously during time of war (and later – national emergency) government must restrict domestic liberty, and impose indirect taxes to pay for the military. This restriction on liberty is consistent with the Constitution’s “secure the blessings of liberty”. After all, men created government to help them protect their families. In the former British Colonies the nobility had to provide soldiers and knights and castles to defend society. But when we created a government – we became responsible to protect what we created.
Today’s people didn’t want this. They wanted it to be the other way around. They wanted to be protected by government.
Drafting men to involuntary servitude to fight in wars is a restriction on personal liberty. This would be perfectly Constitutional if they draft you the Constitutional way, the way Lincoln did. They don’t do this anymore. You are expected to volunteer.
Other restrictions on liberty
The fourth amendment allows reasonable searches and seizures to protect us from criminals taking our liberty. But who determines what is “reasonable”?
The fifth amendment allows private property to be taken for public use if the government pays “just compensation”. You can be thrown out of your family’s house. This is certainly a restriction on the not so secure blessings of liberty.
And the Commerce Clause is overused to control almost everything.
Even growing crops on your own farm can be prohibited if you accept crop subsidy (as in Wickard v Filburn 317 US 111 “It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.”).
Government can also deny government granted privileges such as welfare or licenses. These are not the certain Creator-endowed unailenable rights that are secured by governments instituted among men.
Government cannot convert a right into a privilege and charge a fee (According to the Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 ). So how come you need to get ID to have a right to contract? Answer: they cannot require an ID. Requiring an ID would be abhorrent in the United States. Nor even require a wage authorization number.
The Commerce Clause in Article 1, section 8 says the federal government has the power: “to regulate commerce … among the several States…”
Did the framers of the Constitution really intend for governments to regulate what you make and sell to others?
For a long time people thought the Constitutional words “regulate commerce … among the several states” referred ONLY to promoting commerce, not restricting commerce, after all, “one of the objectives of the Philadelphia Convention was the promotion of commerce” (according to an analysis of the Constitution published in 1996 by the Congressional Research Service in Senate Document 103-6). Example: the first agriculture department in Pennsylvania was created to help farmers sell eggs OUTSIDE of the Commonwealth, and to run a state fair, promoting Pennsylvania grown produce. THAT’S IT! That was the understanding of the Constitution clause regulating commerce among the several states
Where do my rights stop and yours start? The Constitution does not tell us.
I have no right to violate your God-given rights. But Government CAN violate your God-given rights.
So why can an artificial entity, created on paper, violate rights? “We The People” did not have the right to violate your rights, so how could “We The People” delegate a right they themselves did not have? I don’t have an answer. But I do know that 1. the Laws of Nature entitle the government to exist, and 2. according to Blackstone’s Commentaries (a popular law textbook in 1776 that was considered by the Supreme Court to be part of the received-law-of-the-land) “neither could any other law possibly exist… for we are all created equal…”. And 3. Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturae utendum est. When laws of the state fail, we must resort to the laws of nature.
“… no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.. … Neither could any other law possibly exist; … for we are all equal, without any other superior but him who is the author of our being.”– Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, introduction to law
People disagree about what rights should be protected from others, such as by employers, local governments, or corporations that want a monopoly.
So what did the framers do to secure the blessings of liberty from intrusion by others, employers, municipal corporations and corporate monopolies?
FIRST. Although they mentioned certain rights in the Bill of Rights were restricted from government intrusion, they gave courts the duty to settle disputes. THEY DID NOT GIVE courts a role in redefining these rights.
SECOND. The Constitution gives federal lawmakers and State legislative tribunals a major role in defining what liberties are allowed for 14th Amendment citizens.
THIRD. The structure of government had separation of powers so no single branch of government can restrict liberty. The hue-and-cry of the oppressed was expected to enrage the populous into immediate reaction to correct their government.
FOURTH, they left liberty at the mercy of a political process that they never thought would get out of control. They expected great local debates to solve the local violations of natural liberty. And larger debates to solve larger violations. Slavery was a great violation of liberty – eventually abolished by the political process. A great civil war was conducted by elected officials – as Lincoln said – testing whether any nation conceived in Liberty can long endure.
The framers did not want people’s decisions about our lives to be made by government. But it is too late now. You cannot make your own decisions on what business to start, whom to associate with, what prices to pay, how much water flow you can get from your own shower, or how much gasoline your car can guzzle, or how much electricity your light bulb can use. You must now beg for a permit to repair your back porch – in a nation where your great-grandfathers blasted through mountains to build a railroad from sea to shining sea. You are protected from unlicensed dogs, and unlicensed barbers and lemonade stands. There is hardly a blessing of liberty in sight anywhere.
Any puddle on your own land that lasts for 6 weeks a year is now a protected wetland habitat. Government can force you to fence off a 100 foot buffer around your own puddle – and keep you off of 95% of your own property without any hope of just compensation.
Were you much freer, richer, safer when you made your own decisions? Can you pursue your own dreams?
The framers wanted the tough questions about liberty to be left to the political process, But NOT BY A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. A democracy is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
THE US CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD DEMOCRACY. Democracy has no place in America. You have no right to dominate others because we are all created equal.
Should government impose as few restrictions on personal lives to secure the blessings of liberty? Or did the framers want a bigger government to make every decision about your safety?
The framers wanted a political debate to solve the local emergencies, and the courts to resolve disputes.
If you consent to be governed and still want your ideas of liberty to prevail, you must now use elections to select your representatives. BUT BEWARE, your representatives can enslave you, and you cannot complain. Once represented Procurationem adversus nulla est proæscriptio. There is no prescription (cure) for procuration. If you are represented, then you cannot be damaged by your representative. Your submission must be a complete submission with the full understanding that you cannot be damaged by your representative.
Your birth did not voluntarily submit yourself to such a form of government. You were created equal.
YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN
- Why I am not a Constitutionalist.
- Beware of Legal Lingo.
- Founders’ intent
- How much is your liberty worth?
- Identification Credentials
- The changing definition of the term “license”
- On online law course.
==== ::::: ====
Subscribe to my free email list and get a copy of my article on Anti-Privacy Technology. Click Here.
==== ::::: ====
Steven D. Miller is a freelance writer producing informative blog posts, white papers, eBooks and high-density documentaries. He is available to offer hope to any audience that yearns to breathe free. Contact him at Steven.Miller@LibertyContentWriter.com