During the first session of the first Congress under the new Constitution this self-explanatory resolution was passed: -- [ Click for JPG Image.]
The above PREAMBLE was then followed by twelve proposed amendments, the first two of which failed of adoption. The first related to membership in the House of Representatives by population, and the second was against the taking effect of laws varying the compensation of senators and representatives until an election should have intervened. This second proposed amendment was resurrected in 1985 and ratified, becoming Amendment Article XXVII after ratification on May 7, 1992. Six States had ratified this proposed amendment in the two year period from 1790 to 1791, and between 1985 and 1992 an additional 33 States ratified this amendment proposal that was nearly 200 years old.
In ALL the presentations of the Bill of Rights today this most important part of the Bill Of Rights, setting forth the purpose of the Amendments, is left off. Without this Preamble we have no protection from those who would pass amendments, laws, or otherwise corrupt the Constitution.
I have taken the liberty to emphasis in red text the area I am referring to. Please join with me to correct this misconstruction of the Bill Of Rights before it becomes an accepted presentation. It is ESSENTIAL that we read and present the Constitution in it's entirety.
This MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution, and if it didn't, the Amendments spell out the Rights of the People the government couldn't change. Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!! It is imperative that the complete text be included in any study, interpretation or construction of the contents and the Limitations of government imposed by the Constitution for the United States.
It has been stated that some scholars don't think this is important. This is a fallacy.
It is IMPERATIVE for the following reason:
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede and restrict all previous parts of the Constitution, and restrict all subsequent amendments to the framework of the Bill of Rights amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments are a declaration in very plain language of the restrictions to the powers of government and "STATE".
There are people in this country that do not want us to know that this Preamble ever existed. For many years these words and understanding have been "omitted" from presentations of our Constitution.
Public and private schools and colleges alike have based the education of the people and their whole interpretation of the Constitution on this fraudulent omission. (Indeed, when I was searching for it, I was informed by the Dean of the Law School at UC Berkley, that the Bill of Rights amendments had no Preamble.)140
Corrupt judiciary and politicians have, through clever deception, erected interpretations and statutes that fly in the face, in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights amendments. The amendments and their declaratory and restrictive intent can be changed only by due process and the will of the people, as prescribed in the Fifth Article of the Original Constitution.
The Bill of Rights amendments, being declaratory and restrictive, are separate from all the other amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments restrict the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government and "STATE".
The deception is that government and "STATE" can interpret all of the Amendments and the Constitution itself, to serve the ends of "STATE".
By Omitting and Ignoring the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this has been done, usurping the Rights of the People.
As Thomas Cooley has said in "Principles of Constitutional Law":
"Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it . . . To pass an act when they are in DOUBT, whether it does or does not violate the Constitution, is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume."
We the People must end the deception.
The ten Amendments adopted make the so-called American Bill of Rights. The plain fact is that these Amendments do not confer any rights on anyone.
These RIGHTS are INHERENT to all FREE MEN,
bestowed on them by their CREATOR.
Amendments I through X were added to the Constitution to safeguard the intent, purpose and restriction upon government in the protection of We the People from the abuse and usurpation of Freedom by the self-serving Tyrannical Despots and Bureaucracies in government and "STATE".
It has been seen that the Petition of Right, the Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights were favorites of the English peoples. Following the practice in the mother country, the colonists issued a Declaration of Rights through their first Continental (Stamp Act) Congress in 1765.
More than fifteen years before the adoption of these Amendments a Declaration of Colonial Rights had been issued (1774) by the Colonies through deputies sitting "in general congress" at Philadelphia. Reciting that they were "justly alarmed by these arbitrary proceedings of Parliament," which they denounced as "unconstitutional" and "formed to enslave America," they took "into their most serious consideration the best means of attaining" their rights and concluded to "do, in the first place, as Englishmen their ancestors in like cases have usually done for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties."
Then they made specific declarations, among them being that the foundation of liberty is the right to participate in legislative councils; that they were entitled to the "immunities and privileges" given by the colonial charters; that a standing army in the Colonies was "against law"; that restraint of "the right peaceably to assemble . . . and petition" is "illegal"; that "it is indispensably necessary to good government" that the "branches of the legislature be independent of each other" and that therefore a legislative council appointed at the pleasure of the King "is unconstitutional, dangerous and destructive to the freedom of American legislation"; and that Acts of Parliament directing that "colonists be transported to England and tried there upon accusations for treason" and other acts were "unjust and cruel, as well as unconstitutional."
The word "unconstitutional" appears in this Declaration of Colonial Rights again and again.
So Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, New Hampshire and some other States wanted a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and with the tacit understanding that they would have one they ratified it.NH, VA Some argued that all the guaranties in the Amendments already existed in the law transplanted from England; but that was a time of written charters and written constitutions, and, to remove every possibility of doubt, a Bill of Rights was wanted in plain writing. The very fact that a writing exists between men often prevents disputes. When both know definitely what the boundaries are neither is likely to make encroachments. That our forefathers were wise in not leaving such vital matters to inference, implication, or construction will be shown by an examination of the first ten Amendments. However, their Wisdom has been largely ignored by all three branches of government, and by We the People.
"The executive in our governments is not the sole -- it is scarcely the principal -- object of my jealousy," wrote Jefferson from Paris, urging upon Madison the need of amendments making a Bill of Rights; "the tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for many years. That of the executive will come in its turn, but it will be at a remote period." That time has come, NOW, as We the People and the Nation enter the 21st Century.
The Constitution already contained provisions belonging to a Bill of Rights, such as those forbidding ex post facto laws 64 and bills of attainder 63, prohibiting the suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus 62, requiring trial by jury 110 and at the place where the crime was committed, defining treason and limiting punishment 113, 114, 115, 116, granting the immunities and privileges of all States to the citizens of each State 119, and forbidding a religious test 136 before admission to office.
The State constitutions which were adopted in 1776 after the Declaration of Independence contained elaborate bills of rights for the protection of the individual; and, as elsewhere observed, those constitutions were the source of much matter selected by the Constitutional Convention.
The additional safeguards which were given to all men by the so-called Bill of Rights will now be examined. They contain nothing novel. They embody "guaranties and immunities which are inherited from our English ancestors," the supreme Court (1897) has said. Notice that it is
"Safeguards" that are given, Not "Rights", and unless We The People defend those safeguards and insist in strictest adherence, We The People will deserve neither Freedom nor Rights.
It must be again noted that these amendments do not confer any rights on anyone, they were merely a written safeguard that the government and "STATE" would not infringe upon the Natural Inherent Rights of All Free Men which are bestowed upon them by their Creator.
These Safeguards Have Been INFRINGED and SUBVERTED by the "STATE".
To better understand the deceptions, infringements and subversions, every concerned citizen and serious student should thoroughly read and study "Our Enemy, The State", The Classic and Brilliant Critique Distinguishing "government" from "STATE" by Albert J. Nock, and "The Law", by Frederick Bastiat.