For Fair Use from: Bill St Clair
Peter J. Mancus
Attorney at Law
Victorian Square
876 Gravenstein Ave. So., Suite 3
Sebastopol, CA 95472
(707) 829-9050

© Peter J. Mancus 2002
1. For 6,000 years of recorded history, early rulers [pharaohs and kings, etc.] were the best fighters or best politicians or both. Their successors tended to be the first born male, via alleged hereditary entitlement, or the best fighters or best politicians or both. These rulers ruled arbitrarily. Mankind struggled against this abuse of power. That struggle is the story of civilization.
2. Civilization is essentially arrangements existing between rulers and ordinary folks. Some arrangements are based on raw power. Some are, allegedly, based on the Rule of Law. For most civilizations, Rule of Law is code for what the ruler wants.
3. Rule of Law, devoid of norms that protect Man's rights, is not worthy of support. Rule of Law is too vague. Every tyrant had his Rule of Law which authorized arbitrary, cruel, tyrannical acts sanctioned by rubber stamp judges and adoring or petrified majorities. What is needed is a Rule of Law that promotes and protects certain norms.
4. Historically, throughout all cultures, all civilizations, all races, and all continents, the Tyrant's Pattern, uniformly, has been this: demonize arms [swords, firearms, etc.] and their owners; agitate for the regulation, banning and confiscation of same; regulate same; register same; ban same; confiscate same; once the population is disarmed, consolidate power, incarcerate or murder potential hostile leaders; and impose genocide.
5. The story of civilization is Mankind's struggle for, and embrace of, Liberty, per a written Constitution that subjects power to finite limits, protects ordinary folks from abusive rulers, and empowers ordinary folks to hold their rulers and civil authority accountable for their abuse of power entrusted to them.
6. The Ancient Greeks advanced civilization. They are credited with being the first in Western Civilization to function as a democracy. Their version of democracy, however, suffered from a serious liability. Their version was pure democracy, which is mob rule via a majority vote. In Ancient Greece, no one had any legally recognized rights beyond the control of civil authority or the mob. It was 100% legal for a majority to vote to execute anyone per any pretext or without pretext being required. The Ancient Greeks were also enthusiastic supporters of pure democracy—but only for those of property and of the right class.
7. The Ancient Greeks were 100% correct about this concept: He who refuses to participate in self-government runs the risk of being governed by a fool greater than himself.
8. The primary purposes of a written Constitution are:

  • to hold civil authority within specified limits, per agreed upon rules; and
  • to hold civil authority accountable when it violates agreed upon rules.

9. Arguably, the most significant political-legal document written in English, or any other language, in the entire history of Mankind is the July 4th, 1776 Declaration of Independence. The July 4th Declaration is arguably the most significant political-legal document because it declared the following concepts and linked them together for the first time in a new manner:

  • Man has a Creator.
  • Man has inalienable rights that exist in Nature, before the creation of civil authority.
  • The Creator, not civil authority, is the source of Man's inalienable rights.
  • Man's inalienable rights include, but are not limited to, the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
  • These inalienable rights survive the formation of society and the creation of government.
  • The only legitimate purpose of government is to secure these rights—without infringing upon them; and
  • When government's prolonged oppression of the people becomes insufferable, the people have a right and a duty to overthrow government and establish a new rule of law that will restore and preserve these inalienable rights.

10. The July 4th Declaration starkly pitted the concept of Man's Inalienable Rights Derived From a Creator against the concept of the Divine Right of Kings to Rule Arbitrarily. That juxtaposition was the equivalent of a 9.0 political-legal earthquake, which continues to rumble and shake up Mankind, Civilizations and Civil Authorities around the globe.
11. The July 4th Declaration was a radical, revolutionary document signed by brave men the English Crown deemed "criminals."
12. The U.S. Constitution, as modified by the U.S. Bill of Rights, is an attempt to implement, in a pragmatic, workable fashion, the core ideas expressed in the July 4th Declaration.
13. The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789.
14. The U.S. Constitution was first modified in 1791 by the ratification of the U.S. Bill of Rights.
15. The U.S. Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
16. The U.S. Bill of Rights has its own preamble. Most people, including most lawyers and judges, do not know this. An exact quote of part of this preamble is stated below:
"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."
The U.S. National Archives is the official custodian of records for important United States documents. This official, authoritative source confirms that this preamble, as quoted above, exists. See:
17. Please read again, ultra carefully, this excerpt from this preamble. Then ask yourself the questions that follow.
What is the significance of that excerpt?
What were the Framers and Ratifiers of the U.S. Bill of Rights really saying, and agreeing to, for themselves? For their posterity?
Were they saying the following:
We have a fear that the powers set forth in the Constitution might some day be misconstrued or abused or both?
We do not want our words to be perverted?
We want all future generations to take these rights seriously? We are now taking prudent safeguards to prevent that misconstruction or abuse of power?
Consequently, we are now further clarifying everything and modifying the Constitution with the following first ten amendments to it?
These first ten amendments are restrictions on civil authority's powers, INCLUDING civil authority's power to secure the peoples' inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
The peoples' rights, as stated in this Bill, are intended to enjoy legal priority higher than all of civil authority's powers?
These first ten amendments are NOT restrictions on citizens?
On the contrary, these first ten amendments are a statement of the peoples' rights AND IMMUNITIES from civil authority's powers for exercising these rights responsibly?
We called these first ten amendments "the Bill of Rights" on purpose? We knew the difference between a right and a privilege?
We knew the difference between a right and a power? Citizens have rights? Civil authority has powers? We did not call these amendments a "Bill of Civil Authority's Additional Powers." This is because we put civil authority's powers in the Constitution? And we put the peoples' rights in this Bill?
By restrictions, we meant this: these rights belong to citizens. As such, they are legal guarantees. They are an entitlement for all U.S. citizens? They are off-limits—beyond civil authority's powers? Beyond the power of a majority vote?. They are part of the "blessings of liberty"?
Civil authority, and all majorities, must take these rights seriously? These restrictions on civil authority's powers OVERRIDE civil authority's power to restrict these rights to promote the general welfare?
The general welfare cannot be promoted by restricting these rights? The general welfare is promoted by honoring these rights? That is why we included the Right to Petition for Redress of Meritorious Grievances in the First Amendment?
We were not kidding when we included the Right to Petition?
To underscore that we were not kidding about these rights, we included the Second Amendment. We chose our words that make up the Second Amendment carefully to mean exactly what we intended. Those words are: "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." We included this amendment, as worded, because we wanted to make sure that ordinary folk retained the pragmatic means—arms—to enforce their rights should civil authority fail to redress appropriately meritorious petitions for redress of grievances?
If, by the Second Amendment, you [who are now seven generations removed from us] think we were granting civil authority, and only civil authority, a monopoly on arms, you are wrong! Why would we put that in a document we titled "Bill of Rights"? Especially one that has this preamble? Especially when we already granted civil authority the power to have an army and a navy in the Constitution?
Do you think we were brain dead? Do you think we goofed? Do you think we did not know what we were doing?
Do you forget that at least half of us Framers, and all of us major Framers, were among the best lawyers in the colonies? Do you think none of us proof read what we wrote? Do you think all of us intended by this preamble, this Bill, and this Second Amendment, to grant civil authority a monopoly on arms?
Do you realize that we used our privately owned, unregistered arms to win our independence from England and to make our July 4th Declaration stick?
Do you think we would stand toe to toe with redcoats, one of the world's then most professional armies, suffer horrendous losses on the battlefield, endure severe deprivation and heartaches for years, eat roots and wipe our assess with leafs, shiver at Valley Forge for months, and, after emerging victorious in a bloody seven year war, go out of our way to grant civil authority a monopoly on arms?
And codify in a document we called "Bill of Rights" civil authority's power to disarm us?
The Militia referenced in the Second is not civil authority's army? Given our experience with redcoats, we loathed, despised and feared all professional, standing armies?
The Militia was, and is, the people's army?
The Militia means ordinary citizens who are not civil authority's employees who periodically marshall, with their own privately owned, unregistered arms, for a socially beneficial public purpose?
And when the Militia disbands, all citizens who muster, go home, retaining their privately owned, unregistered arms?
Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it state that one has to be a member of the militia to have a right to keep and bear arms?
Gun Prohibitionists can look in vain, with a microscope, until eternity, at the Second Amendment. They will never find an express requirement that the right to keep and bear arms is preconditioned on membership in the Militia . . . or in any government regulated organization?
Well regulated does not mean government regulated. Well regulated means disciplined, trained, effective. A Militia can be all those things without government control?
We knew the difference between people and civil authority or state. We, knowing exactly what we were doing and why, said the right clearly belongs to the people, period?
People is not state, government, nor civil authority! In our day, a right meant a right and people meant people! Be leery of Gun Prohibitionists who persists in trying to rewrite history, who pervert our words, and who substitute one noun for another noun?
We ended the Second Amendment with this clear barrier: ". . . shall NOT be infringed." We did this on purpose, too. We knew that many would try to undermine or take away this right, under various pretexts, pleas of presumed necessity, and other bogus justifications, as a prelude to taking away other rights in this Bill of Rights?
We knew that parchment barriers are useless in the hands of power hungry public serpents?
We wanted to be pragmatic and make certain that ordinary citizens always retained the legal right to have the pragmatic means to resist tyranny and to preserve liberty? That was our policy choice. We were not control freaks.
We did not fear freedom. We trusted ordinary citizens. We understood this dynamic: To the extent that civil authority trusts citizens with arms and treats citizens equitably, civil authority has nothing to fear from well treated citizens, and civil authority can assuredly count on such citizens to use their privately owned, unregistered arms to defend civil authority from foreign aggression or domestic unrest; however, to the extent that civil authority does not trust citizens with arms or abuses them or both, citizens should not trust civil authority and should be willing, able and ready to take up arms against civil authority to preserve and to restore Liberty.
We believed in the citizen-soldier concept, and we loathed the professional soldier, standing army concept. We think we made a long term, wise policy choice. We know we did.
Do you think we were kidding about ". . . shall not be infringed."? "[i]nfringed" means prior restraint of any kind, no matter how slight, no matter what the pretext?
We ended our preamble to the Bill of Rights with this idea: "extending the ground of public confidence in the Government." We cannot stress enough that after emerging from the American Revolutionary War victorious against England, it emphatically would NOT have extended the public's confidence in the newly formed government if, by the Second Amendment, it was then understood that we intended to grant civil authority a monopoly on arms and the power to disarm ordinary citizens.
Do you think those who supported the July 4th Declaration and who survived to Frame the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were champions of police states? Were control freaks?
Do you know us? Do you know our roots? Our world view? Our attitudes? If you did, you would tell modern day Gun Prohibitionists to shut up, and you would bar them from office. And, if they did not shut up, you would do as we did: hang them and burn them in effigy; smear excrement on their homes and places of business; refuse to trade with them; bar them from their courthouses; publicly mock them; drive them out of town; burn their property; and kill them, if need be. We stood up for our rights. We claimed our rights. We did not tolerate a public serpent. [For authoritative historical documentation that this is part of how the Minutemen and political activists treated those loyal to the English Crown, read: Robert A. Gross' The Minutemen And Their World, ISBN 0-8090-0120-9.]
Never allow yourselves to be disarmed and defanged?
Never allow yourselves to lose an arms race with civil authority? Our muskets were technologically the equal to the redcoats'. By the Second Amendment, all ordinary citizens are legally guaranteed the right to maintain technological parity with modern military small arms, regardless of their rate of fire, lethality, power or physical appearances? Otherwise, the Second Amendment loses its effectiveness as a pragmatic check on civil authority turning tyrannical?
We are now dust in our graves. Remember us. We gave up our today's and tomorrow's so you could enjoy your today's and tomorrow's. Forget us at your peril. We did our utmost best to give you a solid framework to live freely and to enjoy the blessings of liberty.
We cannot sustain Liberty for you. Only you can do that for yourselves.
Can you do that? Will you do that? Are you worthy of Liberty?
Or will you continue to make us puke?
When will you stop being a gossipy gaggle?
When will you stop bitching about your chains?
When will you stop being psychologically intimidated by civil authority? Do you not realize that you are the world's most powerful latent guerrilla force?
When will you throw off your chains?
When will you claim your heritage? Your rights?
When will you stop crawling and stand straight, tall, proud, defiant and confident?
18. The primary purpose of the U.S. Bill of Rights was to legally place off-limits, beyond the control of civil authority and all majorities, certain rights—the rights specified in the Bill. In that sense, the primary purpose of the U.S. Bill of Rights was to take away civil authority's advantage, vis-à-vis citizens, of otherwise having absolute, boundless, unfettered, arbitrary control and unchecked power over citizens—their lives, their bodies, their property, their freedom.
19. Mankind's greatest achievement is the U.S. Bill of Rights, but only when adhered to, and not diluted by interpretations that favor civil authority to the detriment of citizens. Mankind's greatest achievement is not the pyramids, not the World Trade Center, not the Panama nor the Suez Canals, not nuclear powered submarines nor super aircraft carriers, not stealth fighters and bombers, not the wonders of modern science and modern medicine, but the U.S. Bill of Rights. That Bill is the high water mark of all civilizations.
20. The U.S. Bill of Rights is the invisible glue that holds the United States together—as an invisible, strong bond between citizen and civil authority, both co-existing peacefully and productively within a framework known as the Constitutional Rule of Law. That framework is unique. That framework freed talented human beings to become productive busy bees, to enjoy hedonistic pursuits without guilt, to worship or not worship the God of their choice [if any], to keep most of the fruits of their labor, and to not have to worry about the proverbial knock on the door . . . and what awaits them when the door is opened . . . or broken down.
21. When the U.S. Bill of Rights is interpreted away, abandoned, ignored, or not enforced, our natural resources, our continental land mass from the Atlantic to the Pacific, our infrastructure, our economy which is the envy of the world, our armed forces, our technological prowess, our intercontinental range nuclear tipped weapons, our satellites, our space shuttles, and our economic juggernaut is of scant value to the ordinary citizen. When civil authority breaks the Constitution's chains and governs in ways that are Constitutionally infirmed, those assets, when controlled by a rogue civil authority with tyrannical tendencies, become a problem. No one wants to be a lone 180-pound citizen versus a billion ton civil authority.
22. Modern technology has enabled a tyrant wannabe to inflict political-legal horrors in ways that Hitler and Stalin could only dream of.
23. It is imperative that citizens manifest the courage to keep civil authority tied down by the Constitution's chains; otherwise, civil authority will continue to morph into an unprecedented political-legal beast with awesome power—demanding more and more concessions from citizens, in the name of necessity. Modern examples of such alleged necessity are: threats to national security, the war against drugs, the war against terrorism, and the need to promote the general welfare [whatever that is!]. Beware of the war against drugs and the war against terrorism. How fortunate for civil authority that both of these wars have no clear boundaries, no clear standards, no reliable signs of progress, stalemate, victory or defeat. Beware how each of these wars, individually, and especially collectively, can be, and will be, exploited—INDEFINITELY, by civil authority—to demand more taxes from citizens and to demand that citizens surrender more Liberty to be sacrificed in the name of Security. Never let your entitlement to Liberty, as a U.S. citizen, nor the Bill of Rights, fall victim to either of these wars.
Heed H.L. Mencken's insight:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
Heed Benjamin Franklin's warning:
"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
24. Necessity, historically, has always been the plea of tyrants.
25. Be hyper vigilant against any and all who plead necessity: surrender one more right, [allegedly] temporarily, for the common good, the common welfare. Whenever you hear that pitch, be hyper vigilant.
26. To the extent that the Bill of Rights glue dissolves, the United States, as envisioned by the Founders, Framers and those who value Liberty, will disintegrate. When that happens, what makes the United States unique and worth fighting for will no longer exist. When that happens, the United States will become a glorified, post industrial state, economically powerful, modern "banana republic" where civil authority's authority and control is boundless, arbitrary and insufferable—where "might makes right".
27. Champion the Bill of Rights. Love Liberty. Never let anything come between you and the Bill of Rights. Take care of that Bill and that Bill will take care of you.
28. Per the Bill of Rights, "right makes might right," and "might" is tied down by the Constitution's chains. This is true, however, only when sufficient numbers of armed citizens take all action necessary to enforce the Bill.
29. Some of the hardest jobs in the world are these: being a good citizen, being a good parent, and being a good soldier on the modern battlefield. Compared to these jobs, being President of the United States or a U.S. Supreme Court Judge or a Governor or a Senator is relatively easy.
30. A good citizen, by definition, has to do all of the following: stay informed; be hyper vigilant to protect Liberty and the Constitutional Rule of Law; show courage; take politically incorrect positions—publicly; keep civil authority from falling into error; and be willing, able and ready to take up arms, when necessary, against civil authority, to preserve or to restore Liberty and the Constitutional Rule of Law.
31. A pure democracy means, literally, one man, one vote. Reformulated, a pure democracy means five wolves, two sheep and one lamb decide what to eat.
32. A pure democracy and a dictatorship are conceptually, logically, politically and legally 100% compatible. How? Simple: The majority becomes the dictator—the infamous tyranny of the majority. Example: In a pure democracy system, a majority is within its legal rights to vote that everyone over 45 years of age, or with freckles, or with buck teeth, or with small breasts, or with blue eyes, etc., should be summarily executed.
33. Realizing the grave implications of how tenuous life is in a pure democracy, is it prudent to live in a pure democracy, where a simple majority can arbitrarily determine your fate? Determine what are your rights, if any?
34. Historically, many majorities have been stupid, mean spirited, unmercifully cruel, and horrendously destructive. Examples: the earth is flat; the earth is the center of the universe; everything revolves around the earth; bleeding is a legitimate medical procedure that will cure most ailments; witches are real; slavery is good; Aryans are superior, etc. Eugene V. Debs was correct when he stated,
"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right."
35. There are no assurances [never have been and never will be] that what a majority wants or votes for correlates with what is wise, prudent, humane, productive, compassionate, moral, ethical, and constitutional.
36. The United States is not, and never was, a pure democracy. This is because our Constitutional Rule of Law system has many built-in countermajoritarian safeguards. Among these are: the separation of powers; staggered elections; the electoral college; bicameral legislature; advise and consent features; executive veto power; specified limits on Congress' powers; and the Bill of Rights.
37. Anyone who states that the United States is a democracy [meaning a pure democracy] telegraphs his or her ignorance and lack of political-legal sophistication and is unfit to be a ruler, or even to vote. They are Constitutional illiterates at best or schemers at worst.
38. Constitutional illiterates are uninformed or misinformed and dangerous. They are incompetent citizens who commit citizenship malpractice, and, if an office holder, statecraft malpractice. They do not even realize how incompetent and dangerous they are to themselves and to others and the problems they create for themselves, others and civil authority.
39. Legally, the United States is a constitutionally limited democratic republic with certain guaranteed minimum rights for all citizens that are off limits and beyond the control of all civil authority and all majorities. These guaranteed minimum rights cannot Constitutionally be pre-conditioned, diluted, infringed, or suspended, etc., by civil authority, by a majority or by civil authority with the backing of a majority.
40. The U.S. Constitution, as modified by the U.S. Bill of Rights, is Mankind's greatest political-legal achievement. This is because it is a workable set of rules calculated to achieve a workable harmony between Majority Control and Minority Rights, with everyone enjoying certain rights within a Constitutional framework.
41. Per our constitutionally limited democratic republic with certain guaranteed minimum rights for all citizens, five wolves cannot get away with eating two sheep and one lamb. This is because the two sheep and one lamb have certain minimum rights which the majority and civil authority are supposed to (and required to) honor.
42. It is prudent for all wolves to respect the rights of all sheep. Majorities are fickle. Majorities are not permanent. Today's wolf is tomorrow's sheep; today's sheep is tomorrow's wolf. Do today's wolves think today's sheep will have pity on them when today's sheep become tomorrow's wolves and today's wolves become tomorrow's sheep?
43. There is security in the Bill of Rights, but only when the Bill is understood, supported and enforced. Outside the Bill, there is brute force and mob rule. Take away the Bill of Rights, or give that Bill lip service, and sheep become mutton to wolves.
44. Because wolves love to devour defenseless sheep, sheep must find the means, and the courage, to cope with and to defeat wolves.
45. Without the Bill of Rights, when the wolves devour the sheep, what will wolves rip into next?
46. The controlling majority that still counts is the one that came together on December 15, 1791 when the U.S. Bill of Rights was ratified.
47. Every U.S. citizen is free to celebrate Christmas, or not celebrate Christmas, on December 25 because of what happened ten days earlier, back in December, 1791.
48. Two things are strong circumstantial evidence that this nation is populated with Constitutional illiterates. First, few people know what happened on December 15, 1791, and second, December 15 is not widely celebrated nor remembered as a crucial date in our nation's history.
49. The United States, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights were born as a result of courageous men who defied a king and his redcoats, who used their wits and skills in a coordinated, sustained manner, and their unregistered, privately owned firearms to make their July 4th Declaration stick. In so doing, many of these courageous men sacrificed their lives and their fortunes, but not their sacred honor. Approximately only one half of those who signed that Declaration were alive when the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The non-survivors were killed in combat with the British, captured and executed by the British, or died of old age or disease.
50. The "supreme law of the land" is the U.S. Constitution, which includes the U.S. Bill of Rights. Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says so.
51. All judicial officers, all elected officers, all law makers, all bureaucrats, all law enforcement officers, all members of the armed forces, and all citizens are subject to the "supreme law of the land."
52. [Note: This point is important. Please pay careful attention.] The entire U.S. Bill of Rights, effective December 15, 1791, to date, per the U.S. Constitution, is part of the Supreme Law of the Land. As such, the entire U.S. Bill of Rights, per the express terms of the U.S. Constitution, as modified by that Bill, was, from the moment it was ratified, and still is, binding on all civil authority [federal, state and local] in the United States, regardless of what anyone else, including the U.S. Supreme Court, says to the contrary. This is because:
Article V of the U.S. Constitution states:
"...amendments...shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified...."
Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Article VII of the U.S. Constitution states:
"The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."
The Preamble to the U.S. Bill of Rights states, in part:
"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."
Go back and read carefully the above four bullet points. What is the true legal significance of these points? I submit that the significance is this: the U.S. Bill of Rights was binding on all levels of civil authority [federal, state and local], from the instant it was ratified on December 15, 1791 to date. A tyrant wannabee will have to win a civil war to undo what was done on December 15, 1791, if, but only if, citizens understand the above four bullet points and manifest courage [a most mysterious intangible] to restore their inalienable rights, as codified in the Bill of Rights.
What part, if any, of the following is factually not true?

  • Article V of the U.S. Constitution states that all amendments to it are part of it.
  • Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that it is the supreme law of the land.
  • Article VII of the U.S. Constitution clearly put the states on written notice that their ratification of the Constitution would be sufficient "for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."
  • The states which ratified the Constitution, and which later joined the Union, are charged with knowing about Article VII and its legal import.
  • Those parts of the Constitution created a federal system of civil authority: one central government with its powers and multiple state and local governments with their powers, all subject to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
  • The Preamble to the U.S. Bill of Rights states that the purpose of the Bill was "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."
  • What was "the Government" that was created when "it," the U.S. Constitution, was ratified in 1789? Answer: one central government and multiple state governments.
  • The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights were ratified on December 15, 1791. When ratified, the entire Bill of Rights modified, and became part of, the U.S. Constitution.
  • The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land—Article VI, Section 2 says so. There is no exception for the states.
  • The U.S. Constitution could not be the supreme law of the land if the states were exempt from that law.
  • Conclusion: the U.S. Bill of Rights was intended to apply to the entire government, namely, all ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution [the states] and the government that the states created by ratifying the U.S. Constitution, namely, a system of federalism [one central government and multiple state governments.]

53. After the colonies won their independence from England, even before George Washington took office as the first U.S. president, two of Washington's greatest champions, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, became the heads of competing factions, the forerunners of political parties and special interests groups. Hamilton championed the cause of Statism, Industrialization, and Nation Building. Jefferson championed the cause of Individual Liberty, Small Government, and Agrarianism. [For a scholarly discussion of this conflict, read the following: The Presidency of George Washington by Forrest McDonald, ISBN 0-7006-0359-X and The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson by Forrest McDonald, ISBN 0-7006-0330-1.]
54. The Hamilton-Jefferson conflict continues. It is a conflict between Statism and Liberty. Statism is winning. Liberty is losing.
55. All of the major Founders and Framers expressed a personal belief in a Creator or Deity.
56. Today, many champions of Statism are atheists or agnostics who believe that civil authority is the source of all rights and that inalienable rights do not exist whereas many champions of Liberty believe a Creator [or Nature] is the source of all rights and that inalienable rights do exist.
57. The conflict between Statists [godless or god fearing, with or without a belief in inalienable rights] and Patriots [godless or god fearing, with a belief in inalienable rights derived from a Creator or Nature, and a strong commitment to maximize Individual Liberty per a Constitutional Rule of Law,] is growing. This conflict appears to be moving toward a flash point that will trigger overt insurrection and civil war. Many Patriots believe that many Statists have an agenda: to eliminate the idea of a Creator [or Nature] as the source of rights and to make a godless civil authority the sole source of rights. Statists believe X. Patriots believe Y. It remains to be seen how long X and Y can co-exist. A key challenge in our lifetime is coming to terms with this Statist-Patriot conflict. What Statists and Patriots believe appears to be 100% irreconcilable.
58. All laws contrary to the "supreme law of the land" are null and void, per the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, no citizen is required to obey any law that is unconstitutional.
59. Legal and Constitutional are not necessarily the same. A law can be the former without being the later, even if a judge has not yet declared the law to be unconstitutional.