From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr@together.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 06:12:27 +0800
To: "CypherPunks List" <baj@sover.net>
Subject: Fwd: Dec. 16 column -- Bill of Rights
Message-ID: <199712202207.RAA21162@mx01.together.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date:        12/18  8:38 AM
Received:    12/18  11:04 PM
From:        Vin Suprynowicz)(by way of Hardy Macia, 
Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com
Reply-To:    Vermont Libertarian, vtlp-list@catamount.com
To:          Multiple recipients of vtlp-list, vtlp-list@catamount.com

This article comes from Vin Suprynowicz's mailing list. Should we have a
celebrat Bill of Rights Day? -- Hardy

_______________________

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED DEC. 16, 1997
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Our second national holiday

    Americans make a big hubbub over the Fourth of July.

  True, the victory of 1781 was an amazing triumph, and the vision of 
those
gathered in Philadelphia five years before -- that men may rightfully form
or disband governments at will, for the higher purpose of protecting our
God-given individual rights -- is still worth celebrating.

  But that confederation of free men ended on June 21, 1788, when New
Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the new United States
Constitution, making it the law of the land. At that point, the
organization of free peoples created by the Declaration of Independence --
the one we still celebrate each July -- passed away.

  Our government school teachers tell us this was necessary because the
Articles of Confederation "weren't working out." But they are woefully
light on specifics. Push them, and most will mutter uncertainly some 
trivia
about seaboard states charging tariffs on goods transshipped to landlocked
states. Point out that the first landlocked states -- Vermont and Kentucky
-- weren't admitted until 1791 and 1792, and they will usually fall into a
puzzled, grumbling silence.

  Anyway, there it is: The people fell for the siren song of "federalism,"
accepting solemn promises that the powers of the new central government
would be sharply limited to those expressly spelled out -- funding a Navy,
granting patents and copyrights, coining metal money. Not much more.

  Fast forward 210 years. As a recipe for limited government, this
Constitution now matches the creature it's supposed to describe about as
well as a Chihuahua's carry-on "Pet Kennel" would fit a drooling Irish
wolfhound.

  The prima facie proof of this failure now stares at us from every acre 
of
the former marshland north of the Potomac, a granite necropolis and
memorial park to our deceased freedoms at least a hundred times larger in
manpower and frenzied ambition to control our lives than Mr. Jefferson
could ever have imagined (though one suspects Mr. Hamilton would have
smiled.)

  In the face of this unchained monster, our thin remaining hope against
outright tyranny lies in the fact that Rhode Island and North Carolina
(bless them) outright refused to ratify that Constitution until a Bill of
Rights was added -- while Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New
Hampshire, Virginia And New York all ratified only on the condition that
some such set of amendments be quickly appended, as was solemnly promised.

  And so, on the day we should probably celebrate as our SECOND great
national holiday, on Dec. 15, 1791, Virginia became the 11th state to
ratify the first 10 proposed amendments -- Mr. Madison's "Bill of Rights"
-- though a better name might be the "Bill of Prohibitions" on government
conduct.

  This Dec. 15, as usual, that anniversary passed with the kind of
afterthought mention on the daily news and propaganda broadcasts usually
reserved for "On this day 70 years ago, Commander Perry reached the North
Pole" -- about as much attention as was paid, two days later, to the 224th
anniversary of the great event of Dec. 17, 1773 ("The most magnificent
movement of all. There is a dignity, a majesty, a sublimity in this last
effort of the patriots that I greatly admire," said future president John
Adams of the tax-resisting militiamen who that day dumped 342 chests of 
tea
into Boston harbor.)


An establishment of religion

  To their credit, Aaron Zelman and J.E. Simkin of the little
Milwaukee-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership battled 
for
months this year to get city councils around the country to adopt
proclamations honoring Dec. 15 as Bill of Rights Day -- succeeding with a
small, proud band which now includes Randolph County, N.C.; Cobb County,
Ga.; the City of Asheboro; the town of Rainier, Wash.; and spunky little
Valley City, N.D.

  JPFO has also just brought out the latest in their line of "Gran'pa 
Jack"
comic books, "It's Common Sense to Use Our Bill of Rights ...  Or Lose
Them!" suitable to explain the Bill of Rights to any kid, aged 6 to 60 ...
of which more later.

  But against Mr. Zelman's admirable efforts, the question remains: Why do
the folks now in charge of our national offices -- including the 
government
schools -- so pass over and ignore the historic ratification of those 462
little words which have made us for two centuries the envy of men and 
women
seeking freedom the world around -- this Bill of Rights?

  Because they fear folks might actually read them?

  They're in plain English, you know. It was never intended we should need
an attorney to tell us what they mean -- let alone that we should tolerate
courts telling us they don't mean what we can plainly read there for
ourselves.

  It couldn't be because they're afraid we'd actually go read the First
Amendment, could it, which begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion ..."?

  What does it mean for a government to "establish" a religion? Why,
clearly, to establish one religion as that enforced by the government,
against all others ... like the Church of England.

  Let us suppose, for instance, that an extremist cult were to arise, 
which
holds it is a mortal sin to plow under any weed, or to destroy any bug or
small verminous rodent which we may find on our own property, providing 
the
priests of this extremist cult should decide (based on divine revelation)
to list that weed or bug in their own scriptures as "threatened" or
"endangered."

  That would be no problem, so long as the priests of this weird sect had
no legal authority to do anything but preach against us from their own,
private pulpits.

  But let us now suppose the government were to erect a headquarters for
this sect in Washington at taxpayer expense, and issue them guns and
badges, empowering them to enter onto our private property, arresting and
jailing us and seizing our land and homes if they should find us killing
our own weeds and bugs, to which no one else can demonstrate any legal
title?

  That would be "an establishment of religion," wouldn't it, and thus
banned under the First Amendment? Why, such extralegal usurpations might
even tempt government agents to eventually storm, burn and massacre
harmless citizens in their own churches of a Sunday afternoon, for
practicing some religion not approved by Washington, mightn't it? Thank
goodness we have a First Amendment to prevent that kind of thing.

  So (start ital)that(end ital) couldn't be the one they don't want us to 
read.

  It couldn't be because they're afraid we'd actually go read the (start
ital)Second(end ital) Amendment, could it? The one that says "A well
regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?


Shall not be infringed

  What's that word "free" doing in there?

  Mr. Madison knew full well that no citizen-militia was necessary to
protect the security of the kingdoms of France or Russia. Mercenary,
professional, standing armies did just fine to protect their borders -- at
the price of their own disarmed populaces being subject to tyranny under
the same muskets.

  Only a "free" country requires that the bulk of the potential armed
forces consist of free, private citizens better armed than the men
commanded by the central government, just as the unofficial "Fairfax 
County
Militia" of Messrs. Washington and Mason had been better armed than the
special militia or "National Guard" available to obey the orders of the
crown's "governor of Virginia" in 1776 ... else the Revolution still fresh
in Mr. Madison's mind could never even have been launched, let alone won.

  What the Second Amendment clearly means is that -- as a guarantee 
against
the threat of internal government tyranny -- any law-abiding American 
adult
not obviously insane or severely retarded has a right to own and carry 
with
him -- down to the federal courthouse, to a rally in Washington City, or
onto an airplane -- a belt-fed 30-caliber Browning machine gun, or a
shoulder-launched heat-seeking missile. (You're not going to argue we 
could
stand up to the FBI, the ATF, or the 87th Airborne with a Ruger 10-22 and 
a
few old muzzle-loaders, I hope?)

  And when it says that right shall not be "infringed," that means neither
the weapon, nor its ammunition, nor the buying or transport of either, may
be taxed, regulated, or subjected to any "permitting" process. The
government can't even require that the store clerk who sells me my machine
gun "check my ID," or write down my name.

  Certainly, under a Constitution so amended, no congresswomen would ever
be allowed to ban the import and private purchase of certain militarily
useful firearms because their pistol grips and removable magazines makes
them (start ital)too(end ital) useful to freedom-fighters ... would they?
Nor would any president be able to remain in office if he ordered surplus
government M-1 Garands and Colt 1911s shredded and melted to keep them out
of the hands of our own civilian militia ... or banned the re-importation
of American-made Garands and M-1 carbines without even submitting a bill 
to
Congress, instead merely signing some royal decree, or so-called 
"executive
order" ... would he?

  No; that's all clear enough. (start ital)That(end ital) can't be the one
they don't want us to read.


An impartial jury

  Could it be they're afraid we might read the (start ital)Sixth(end ital)
Article of Amendment, which begins, "In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an 
impartial
jury ..."

  The high court, of course, now holds this doesn't mean what it appears 
to
mean to us non-lawyers, at all. Rather than see the courts grow too
crowded, her eminence Sandra Day O'Connor now informs us no trial is
required if the state agrees to jail us for fewer than 180 days ... or 
even
for fewer than 180 days on (start ital)each charge(end ital).

  But crowded courts are a self-correcting problem, once all defendants 
are
guaranteed a "speedy" trial. The correct answer is to force every case to
trial before a jury within one week ... to ban all "plea bargains." (Do we
really believe the cops arrest all those people on the wrong charges?)

  Forced to pick and choose the few cases they really have time to try,
prosecutors would be forced (under the existing "speedy trial" provision)
to promptly release the 95 percent of federal defendants who have 
committed
no violent felony, but only violated some arbitrary bureaucratic edict. 
Aw,
gee.

  And by the way, what's that word "impartial" doing in there?

  The British common-law jury system with which the Founders were familiar
made no provision for the judge to ask potential jurors in advance whether
they favored the enforcement of the law in question ... which is why the
misguided government could never get any convictions in the North in the
1850s on charges of violating the hated Fugitive Slave Act, any more than 
a
government saddled with the same jury system could convict William Penn in
London, some years before, on charges of preaching a Quaker sermon.

  Importantly, it is only the (start ital)defendant(end ital) who is
guaranteed an impartial jury -- we find here no guarantee that "the state
shall enjoy ..."

  When the judge asks the jury pool whether anyone would have a problem
sending someone to jail for smoking pot, or for owning an ancient
collectable World War One machine gun without having previously submitted
his fingerprints to the ATF, or for declining to pay a federal income tax
on wages -- and when that judge promptly sends home anyone who raises his
or her hand -- he is not empaneling an "impartial" jury; he is
pre-screening a jury guaranteed to be predisposed to the government's 
case.
He is violating the Sixth Amendment.

  The original term for a jury trial was a trial "en pays," or "on the
country." The jury is supposed to represent a cross-section of our fellow
citizens. Unless a law has broad -- 92 percent, actually -- public 
support,
the chances are that a randomly-selected group of 12 citizens will include
one member (8.33 percent of the panel) who finds the law a hateful
abomination, and who will refuse to convict. Hung jury: Defendant walks.

  That is the meaning, and the intent, of the Sixth Amendment prohibition
on government taking away our life, liberty or property without "a speedy
trial ... by an impartial jury."

  And what about the Tenth Amendment, which specifies, "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it 
to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

  This means 90 percent of the laws, agencies, orders and regulators now
pouring forth from Washington City like demons breaching the walls of hell
are null and void -- deformed, fatherless creatures, apt to melt away like
Goblins if ever tested in the harsh daylight of the Bill of Rights.


'Which one? Point to it'

  It doesn't matter whether you like these rights and prohibitions,
consider that they might tempt disorder, or think it's a good idea to
"allow" them -- any more than it matters whether you think we should
"allow" the sun to rise tomorrow, or the birds to fly. It doesn't work 
that
way.

  The several sovereign states only ratified the Constitution on our 
behalf
on condition that these protections of our unalienable rights against
government "infringement" be made the highest law of the land. Without the
first 10 amendments, the whole contract is null and void ... without them,
there IS no legitimate federal government, and their tax collectors become
nothing but common thieves, subject to being shot on sight if ever caught
outside their federal asylum on the Potomac.

  Any government official who declines to protect and defend these
amendments, in their clear meaning, is a traitor, in violation of the
sacred oath they all take to protect and defend this Constitution. Such
persons should be indicted -- impeached, if they are high officials -- 
and,
only if convicted by either the Senate or an impartial citizen jury,
hanged.

  This includes a whole lot of Congressmen, who have voted for a massive
snare of laws which "sounded like a good idea" without doing their sworn
duty, which was to open said Constitution to Article I Section 8 (the
Powers of Congress), scan through the 431 words found there, and then ask
the sponsor, "Which one of these 18 sentences gives you the specific,
delegated power to spend FEDERAL tax money to pay the medical bills of
barefoot Appalachian widows? Which one? Point to it."

  The comic book "Gran'pa Jack No. 3: 'Common Sense' " is available at $4
per single copy, $20 for 25, $30 for 50, from Jews for the Preservation of
Firearms Ownership, 2874 S. Wentworth Ave., Milwaukee, Wisc. 53207.

  The first Gran'pa Jack comic, " 'Gun Control' Kills Kids," is also still
available, at $3 single copy, $14 for 25, $20 for 50 -- Wisconsin 
residents
add 5.6 percent sales tax.

  Or telephone the JPFO at 414-769-0760.

  Meantime, go buy a copy of the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill
of Rights, and read them to a child.

  It's our next-to-last last hope.

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The 
web
site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The
column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media
Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127.

***




Vin Suprynowicz,   vin@lvrj.com

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of 
se---------------------------------------------------
This message is from the VTLP-list (Vermont Libertarian) mailing list. To 
send
a message to everyone on this list send email to 
<vtlp-list@catamount.com>. To
unsubscribe from the list send eamil to <macjordomo@catamount.com> with
"unsubscribe vtlp-list" in the body of the message. To subscribe to the 
list
send email to <macjordomo@catamount.com> with "subscribe vtlp-list your 
name"
in the body of the message.

 


----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------

Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr
  For PGP Keys  <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key>

  "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is 
   no path, and leave a trail."  - Ralph Waldo Emerson