Two spokes of the wheel

After doing some more reading.....I consider these two amendments to the Constitution to be joined at the hip.

Amendment IX and Amendment X

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

These are the heart and soul of the Bill of Rights. I have been reading the last several days that there was an importance to the order in which the amendments were written. In other words the right to freedom of speech was more important than the right to keep and bear arms, which was more important than the freedom from self-incrimination etc. etc.

I think our founding fathers were a bit tricky and sly for a bunch of old Virginia farmers, newspaper men, South Carolina farmers, Lawyers, and tinkers. These two amendments

GUARANTEE

that they did not plan on enumerating all the rights that were kept by the people. They instead designed a Republic of the people, by the people, and for the people, where any rights that were not enumerated were retained by WE THE PEOPLE.

Think I am going to do some more digging about the life and times of these sly and very wise drafters of our Constitution.

Be back later.

Any thoughts?

By no means am I a lawyer, constitutional scholar, or lawmaker. I am a common man, a citizen of the United States (By the grace of God), and further more a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia. There are a few Commonwealths in this country. Will explore that later. As I recall, a law can not be legal if the common man can not understand its true meaning and intent. I think I qualify as a good test board.

There are some simple amendments to the Constitution (the first ten of which are commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights for those of you who qualify to be on Jay Leno's sidewalk talk piece), that specifically state certain rights retained by the people and limit the powers of government. These amendments are pretty clear in their intent and I feel very ignored by people today.

Lets Explore them separately and see where this goes.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The intent = NO law shall be imposed that prohibits or diminishes the PEOPLES rights to the above mentioned items. There is NO provision here to limit my speech to only that which is not offensive to someone or some group. For example. The rules and laws prohibiting such things as wearing an American flag in school because it may offend a person of Mexican heritage or praying in public because it MAY offend a Muslim, are flat out unconstitutional. We the People retain the right to say what we feel needs to be said, pray when and to whom we like, assemble peaceably, etc without fear of retribution from the government because it may hurt the fealings of someone or some group. This is not to say that I support the views of some radical groups such as the Nation of Islam, Aryan Nation, KKK, etc, but I do support their rights to SAY what they want, ASSEMBLE PEACEABLY where they want, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The misuse = This amendment has recently been the foundation for lawsuits and laws being passed to prohibit the speech of one group that may simply hurt the feelings of another group. GET OVER IT. The meaning of this amendment is best described in my book as
"As much as I may hate the content of your speech, I MUST as a citizen RESPECT your right to say it." No where in the constitution does the right to be supported in your views exist. If it does, someone please point me to it.

Amendment II

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.

The intent = First off, I read this as a list. The founding fathers saw a need for TWO things and covered it in one amendment.
a. A well regulated militia being a necessity for the security of a free state.
b. The people's right to keep and bear arms.

I will post further the 1700's colonial definition of a militia. As to the INTENTION of the founding fathers to the meaning and intent of the second amendment???????? Just read this

"In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. A gun was an everyday implement in early American society, and Jefferson recommended its use. "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

And this

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

Get the picture?

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Intent = This is the most unknown and unquoted amendment in my opinion. Ever read it? Any right listed shall not be interpreted to deny other rights explicitly retained by the people. Followed by the tenth.....

Misuse = No scholar is required to read and interpret the constitution. Pretty clear the meaning. People retain rights. Not loose them because times change.

Amendment X

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.

Intent = In conjunction with the ninth.......If its not in here it is retained by the states and the
people.

Misuse = ONE BIG ONE COMING. Should Sen. Clinton win the presidencay, Socialized medicine will be forthcoming. Where in the constitution does it say that you have the right to medical treatment? "Life, liberty, and the pursuit...." Don't think so. Many people have construed this to mean that the government provide welfare type medical care......try again. A citizen is entitled to live here. Not be provided for.

Enough for one day.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

My 2nd protects your 1st.

Taken from the tag line of an unknown forum user on the internet.

Many months of down-time

I realized after starting a blog that there is an awful lot of work required to maintain a good blog. I quickly fell into the hole of not posting. I guess I really did not have much to say when no-one was responding in anyway, shape, or form.

I am now re-entering the blogging world with a new focus in life. What I have to say in this forum needs to be said. The normal press is not performing well, and some of the rights of Americans are being eroded daily.

My intention is to be a voice in stopping this downward spiral.

So HERE GOES......