MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Freedom of Conscience – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on February 3, 2023

The libertarian position on discrimination has nothing to do with racism, sexism, prejudice, bigotry, or hate; it has everything to do with property rights, freedom of contract, freedom of association, and, most importantly, freedom of conscience.

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/freedom-of-conscience/

by Laurence M. Vance

Libertarian philosopher and historian George H. Smith (1949–2022), in his collection of essays titled Freethought and Freedom, incisively remarked that “without freedom of conscience no other freedoms are possible.” It is my contention that freedom of conscience is under attack right now — in the third decade of the twenty-first century — more so than at any other time in history.

Freedom of conscience is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The closest thing to it is found in the First Amendment, which reads: “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 “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses of the First Amendment are generally thought of as protecting the freedom of religion, which is sometimes identified with the freedom of conscience. Related to this is the prohibition of religious tests for federal office found in the third clause of the Constitution’s article VI.

But freedom of conscience cannot be limited to just religion. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, “sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected.” Articles 18 and 19 relate to freedom of conscience:

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
  2. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966, and effective in 1976, expanded these two articles and added a caveat to each one:

18.1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

18.2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

18.3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

19.1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

19.2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

19.3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

We may thus define freedom of conscience as the freedom of an individual to hold a viewpoint, belief, or thought — religious or otherwise — without state interference, coercion, or molestation.

Religion

Freedom of religion is certainly a major part of freedom of conscience. Americans generally take religious freedom for granted because it is so ingrained in American culture. Such was not always the case, however, especially in colonial New England. The story of the banishment of Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams from the Massachusetts Bay Colony is well known. Even for several years after the adoption of the Constitution, the new states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire had established churches.

But in many countries of the world, even in the twenty-first century, freedom of religion is precarious. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

How Much Better Society Would Be If Government Followed The Constitution

Posted by M. C. on January 26, 2023

https://rumble.com/v273vac-how-much-better-society-would-be-if-government-followed-the-constitution.html

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The FBI and Personal Liberty – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 19, 2023

The FBI admission that it uses the CIA and the NSA to spy for it came in the form of a 906-page FBI rulebook written during the Trump administration, disseminated to federal agents in 2021 and made known to Congress last week.

Needless to say, the CIA and the NSA cannot be pleased. The CIA charter prohibits its employees from engaging in domestic surveillance and law enforcement. Yet, we know the CIA is present physically or virtually in all of the 50 U.S. statehouses.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/01/andrew-p-napolitano/the-fbi-and-personal-liberty/

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Among the lesser-known holes in the Constitution cut by the Patriot Act of 2001 was the destruction of the “wall” between federal law enforcement and federal spies. The wall was erected in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which statutorily limited all federal domestic spying to that which was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The wall was intended to prevent law enforcement from accessing and using data gathered by America’s domestic spying agencies.

Those of us who monitor the government’s destruction of personal liberties have been warning for a generation that government spying is rampant in the U.S., and the feds regularly engage in it as part of law enforcement’s well-known antipathy to the Fourth Amendment. Last week, the FBI admitted as much.

Here is the backstory.

After President Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Congress investigated his abuse of the FBI and CIA as domestic spying agencies. Some of the spying was on political dissenters and some on political opponents. None of it was lawful.

What is lawful spying? The modern Supreme Court has made it clear that domestic spying is a “search” and the acquisition of data from a search is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That amendment requires a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of crime presented under oath to the judge for a search or seizure to be lawful. The amendment also requires that all search warrants specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

The language in the Fourth Amendment is the most precise in the Constitution because of the colonial disgust with British general warrants. A general warrant was issued to British agents by a secret court in London. General warrants did not require probable cause, only “governmental needs.” That, of course, was no standard whatsoever, as whatever the government wants it will claim that it needs.

General warrants, as well, did not specify what was to be searched or seized. Rather, they authorized government agents to search wherever they wished and to seize whatever they found; stated differently, to engage in fishing expeditions.

When Congress learned of Nixon’s excesses, it enacted FISA, which required that all domestic spying be authorized by the new and secret FISA Court. Congress then lowered the probable cause of crime standard for the FISA Court to probable cause of being a foreign agent, and it permitted the FISA Court to issue general warrants.

How can Congress, which is itself a creature of the Constitution, change standards established by the Constitution? Answer: It cannot legally or constitutionally do so. But it did so nevertheless.

Yet, the FISA compromise that was engineered in order to attract congressional votes was the wall. The wall consisted of regulatory language reflecting that whatever data was acquired from surveillance conducted pursuant to a FISA warrant could not be shared with law enforcement.

So, if a janitor in the Russian embassy was really a KGB agent who was distributing illegal drugs as lures to get Americans to spy for him, and all this was learned via a FISA warrant that authorized listening to phone calls from the embassy, the telephonic evidence of his drug dealing could not be given to the FBI.

The purpose of the wall was not to protect foreign agents from domestic criminal prosecutions; it was to prevent American law enforcement from violating personal privacy by spying on Americans without search warrants.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Constitution Is Largely Ignored — But It’s Still There If The People Really Want It

Posted by M. C. on January 12, 2023

https://rumble.com/v24sjew-the-constitution-is-largely-ignored-but-its-still-there-if-the-people-reall.html

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Bill of Rights: The Ignored History of Why it Exists | Tenth Amendment Center

Posted by M. C. on December 20, 2022

Why don’t they teach this history?  We can only guess, but I personally think it has plenty to do with the fact that the bill of rights wasn’t about granting rights to people – or having a central government to protect us – but instead – it was about opposition to centralized power.

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/12/15/bill-of-rights-the-ignored-history-of-why-it-exists/

By: Michael Boldin

Today is “Bill of Rights Day” – commemorating ratification on Dec. 15, 1791.

But what the government-run schools – and supporters of the monster state – “teach” about the Bill of Rights has almost nothing to do with the foundational principles which motivated the people who supported – and demanded it.

They want us to focus on inane trivia – and they definitely present things as if the Bill of Rights “granted” our rights, or were meant to create a nationwide liberty enforcement squad in the federal government.

No, it was – you guessed it – about the principles behind what was ratified as the 10th Amendment. Drawing a line in the sand, as Samuel Adams put it, “between the federal Powers vested in Congress, and the sovereign Authority belonging to the several States.”

Richard Henry Lee – who on Sept 27, 1787 in the Confederation Congress proposed adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution drafted by the Philadelphia Convention – BEFORE sending it to the states for ratification, agreed. He said that drawing that clear line between expressly delegated power – and those reserved is “the great use of a bill of rights.”

The same thing happened in a number of state ratification documents, starting with Massachusetts, then South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia – and New York.

I covered this in some detail in an episode of Path to Liberty, here:
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/12/bill-of-rights-the-untold-story-of-why-it-exists/

In early 1788, ratification of the Constitution was almost certain to fail in Massachusetts – home of Samuel and John Adams, Theophilus Parsons, John Hancock – and so many others. A loss there – Federalists understood – would send them reeling in states where it was expected to be a very close call at best – like New York and Virginia. In other words, the entire proposal was close to being doomed.

But – as advised by Richard Henry Lee months earlier, Samuel Adams and John Hancock went along with a plan to ratify, but only with the option of including recommended amendments as well. On Feb 6, 1788 – they did just that, and the very first recommended amendment from the Sons of Liberty will probably look familiar to any reader of the Tenth Amendment Center:

First. That it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.

South Carolina followed their lead with this:

This Convention doth also declare that no Section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a Construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union.

And on June 21, 1788 – New Hampshire sealed the deal on ratification by also including as their first recommended amendment the same precursor to the 10th Amendment from Massachusetts.

But even after New York and Virginia followed with similar proposals, Federalists in the First Congress stonewalled – and did everything they could to prevent amendments from being considered and sent to the states for ratification.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Biden’s Newfound Love of the Constitution – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on December 7, 2022

Of course, at the risk of stating the obvious, it’s not just Joe Biden and his leftwing Democratic cohorts who have long favored these open and flagrant violations of the Constitution. Republican rightwing statists, including Donald Trump, have long been in the same anti-Constitution camp.

https://www.fff.org/2022/12/05/bidens-newfound-love-of-the-constitution/

by Jacob G. Hornberger

President Biden and other leftwing statists are up in arms over a comment made by former President Trump calling for “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” in order to declare him the winner of the 2020 presidential election, which he claims was stolen from him. As they condemn Trump for his comment, Biden and his leftwing statist cohorts have suddenly discovered a deep and profound love and respect for the Constitution.

Responding to Trump’s statement, Biden’s White House spokesman Andrew Bates, stated:

The American Constitution is a sacrosanct document that for over 200 years has guaranteed that freedom and the rule of law prevail in our great country. The Constitution brings the American people together – regardless of party – and elected leaders swear to uphold it…. Attacking the Constitution and all it stands for is anathema to the soul of our nation and should be universally condemned.

Really?

Well, how about we review some of the positions that Biden and his leftwing Constitution-loving cohorts have long taken that contradict that lovely statement by White House spokesman Bates?

1. The declaration of war requirement. The Constitution states that the president is prohibited from waging war without a congressional declaration of war from Congress. Yet, that constitutional provision has been openly and flagrantly ignored and violated in every single foreign war since World War II, with the full support of leftwing statists.

2. Gold and silver. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to coin money. It does not give the federal government the power to print money. Moreover, the Constitution expressly states that no state shall make anything but gold and silver legal tender. Nonetheless, leftwing statists have openly and flagrantly ignored and violated these constitutional provisions since the 1930s, when leftwing Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt illegally nationalized gold and made it a felony offense to own it. 

3. Federal drug laws. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to punish people for ingesting drugs that have not been approved by federal officials. In fact, in order to punish people for ingesting alcohol, statists had to secure a constitutional amendment (which they later repealed through another constitutional amendment). Leftwing statists have never done the same with respect to federal drug laws. Instead, they continue to openly and flagrantly support the federal arrests, prosecutions, incarcerations, and fines for people who are caught ingesting unapproved substances. 

4. Welfare, including Social Security and Medicare. One searches in vain for any grant of power in the Constitution to the federal government to grant welfare to anyone, including seniors. Nonetheless, the feds openly and flagrantly continue to operate their gigantic socialist welfare-state programs, with the full support of leftwing statists. 

5. The conversion to a national-security state. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

There Is No Such Thing as Limited Government!

Posted by M. C. on September 29, 2022

By Gary D. Barnett

There Is No Such Thing as Limited Government!

“The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this–that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot.”

~ Lysander Spooner

Certain idiocy should be put to rest, if any logic or understanding of real life is ever to be present in the minds of the mass herd. Yes, immediately this seems brutal, but sometimes, stark and unambiguous reality must be forthcoming in order to bring to light truths that are indisputable. The lie that there is such a thing as ‘limited government,’ is one of these bastardizations of ‘thought,’ that qualifies as absolute nonsense.

Even in its inception, this notion was presented and seeded in the minds of what are called citizens, by the very politicians and wealthy political backers of those politicians, whose singular goal was to create an unlimited federal (national) central governing system, that required all to participate whether they agreed to or not. In fact, not one average citizen from the beginning of this country until today, has ever signed and agreed to any contract (Constitution) requiring any government to exist. To accentuate the absurdity of such a claim that this or any government is limited, the only acceptance of any agreement to create a government was by the political criminals themselves who drew up the blueprint to obtain unlimited power.

I could site a thousand situations that refute the lie that any ‘limited government’ ever has or could exist, but only one is really necessary; and that is the state’s falsely claimed power to tax. All taxation is criminal and immoral, because it is forceable theft, and taxation is based on taxing all so-called ‘private’ property, and throughout all of society. The very first power given in the first Article of the heinous Constitution; Article 1, Section 8, the ‘Powers Clauses,’ is this:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This initial power stated, written, and implemented by the political class, with the ‘assumed,’ not written, consent of the governed, gives unlimited taxing power to the federal government. In and of itself, such a pronouncement of power negates freedom entirely, and is overwhelming evidence that the first order of business of the founding tyrants was the unlimited ability to steal by force the property of ‘its’ citizens. There is no limit in this language, and even if there was, it would be worthless because the government retains the power to change it at will with only a majority vote by the few legislators holding power over everyone in the country, in what was ludicrously labeled, a ‘representative republic.’ What poppycock.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Spooner: We Didn’t Consent to the Constitution

Posted by M. C. on September 10, 2022

Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or ever consented to.

https://mises.org/wire/spooner-we-didnt-consent-constitution

Lysander Spooner

The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody.

The women, children, and blacks, of course, were not asked to give their consent. In addition to this, there were, in nearly or quite all the States, property qualifications that excluded probably one half, two thirds, or perhaps even three fourths, of the white male adults from the right of suffrage. And of those who were allowed that right, we know not how many exercised it.

Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution, could thereby bind nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but themselves. They had no more natural right or power to make political contracts, binding upon succeeding generations, than they had to make marriage or business contracts binding upon them.

Still further. Even those who actually voted for the adoption of the Constitution, did not pledge their faith for any specific time; since no specific time was named, in the Constitution, during which the association should continue. It was, therefore, merely an association during pleasure; even as between the original parties to it. Still less, if possible, has it been any thing more than a merely voluntary association, during pleasure, between the succeeding generations, who have never gone through, as their fathers did, with so much even as any outward formality of adopting it, or of pledging their faith to support it. Such portions of them as pleased, and as the States permitted to vote, have only done enough, by voting and paying taxes, (and unlawfully and tyrannically extorting taxes from others,) to keep the government in operation for the time being. And this, in the view of the Constitution, they have done voluntarily, and because it was for their interest, or pleasure, and not because they were under any pledge or obligation to do it. Any one man, or any number of men, have had a perfect right, at any time, to refuse his or their further support; and nobody could rightfully object to his or their withdrawal.

See the rest here

Author:

Lysander Spooner

Lysander Spooner (1808–1887) is the American individualist anarchist and legal theorist known mainly for setting up a commercial post office in competition with the government and thereby being shut down. But he was also the author of some of the most radical political and economic writings of the 19th century, and continues to have a huge influence on libertarian thinkers today. He was a dedicated opponent of slavery in all its forms — even advocating guerrilla war to stop it — but also a dedicated opponent of the federal invasion of the South and its postwar reconstruction. See Let’s Abolish Government, a collection selected personally by Murray Rothbard as Spooner’s best work.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Lawless! Biden Side-steps Constitution In Promise To Write Off Student Loans” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on August 26, 2022

https://youtu.be/ibKJIteBlQo

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Dismantling the Constitution: Police No Longer Have to Honor the Right to Remain Silent

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2022

by John W. Whitehead

In other words, concludes legal analyst Nick Sibilla, “the Supreme Court has effectively created a new legal immunity for cops accused of infringing on the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.”

Dismantling the Constitution: Police No Longer Have to Honor the Right to Remain Silent

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

We are witnessing the gradual dismantling of every constitutional principle that serves as a bulwark against government tyranny, overreach and abuse.

As usual, the latest assault comes from the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 ruling in Vega v. Tekoh, the Supreme Court took aim at the Miranda warnings, which require that police inform suspects that they have a right against self-incrimination when in police custody: namely, that they have a right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and that anything they say and do can and will be used against them in a court of law.

Although the Supreme Court stopped short of overturning its 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, the conservative majority declared that individuals cannot hold police accountable for violating their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

By shielding police from lawsuits arising from their failure to Mirandize suspects, the Supreme Court has sent a message to police that they no longer have to respect a suspect’s right to remain silent.

In other words, concludes legal analyst Nick Sibilla, “the Supreme Court has effectively created a new legal immunity for cops accused of infringing on the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.”

Why is this important?

In totality, the rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment speak to the Founders’ determination to protect the rights of the individual against a government with a natural inclination towards corruption, tyranny and thuggery.

The Founders were especially concerned with balancing the scales of justice in such a way that the innocent and the accused were not railroaded and browbeaten by government agents into coerced confessions, false convictions, or sham trials.

Indeed, so determined were the Founders to safeguard the rights of the innocent, even if it meant allowing a guilty person to go free, that Benjamin Franklin insisted, “It is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.”

Two hundred-plus years later, the Supreme Court (aided and abetted by the police state, Congress and Corporate America) has flipped that longstanding presumption of innocence on its head.

In our present suspect society, “we the people” are all presumed guilty until proven innocent.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »