Happy Bill of Rights Day

It was argued at the convention of 1787 there was no need for a bill of rights as the constitution itself implies and asserts a promotion of all rights, and to specify some would reduce the protection of others, and the ideal of federalism, which is to promote rights and a uniformity, and not otherwise.

The point of federalism, which I think was wimpy, was to provide an order and stability for our nascent land by unifying diverse areas. It was the lesser of two evils, so to speak, and none of its hallmarks invented by the founders, but grounded in studies and practices of history, cited and attributed in The Federalist Papers. The myth our founders invented these federalist, republican and democratic practices, should make one think again about the merits of federalism.

1)No law respecting an establishment of religion means congress can discriminate and make a law disrespecting a bad religion. Obviously the exercise of religion includes incorporating religious product in one’s job.

The press is not free, as they obscure and don’t recognize the kingdom of god, and thus slander humans. By the same token, speech is not free. In some ways this liberation is the legal battle ahead.

The right to peacefully assemble is not properly understood as the logical and traditional way to make local decisions. Peaceful assemblies, where locals in classical times made decisions together, is abridged by local officials. Likewise the right to petition the government for redress of grievance is not known as the right to bring up an issue in court.

2) I believe makes the ownership of arms contingent upon being a member of a local militia and that our founders encouraged militias as the helpful force to turn to in tensions between the state and federal or people and government, indeed, that is said in the federalist papers. I believe a well-regulated militia should be regulated by the people who do not want to bear arms. I also think if the kingdom of god is revealed, things might be so scary that a gun could be natural, so this amendment isn’t meant to inhibit that.

3) Protects us from militia staying in our house; and migrating hoardes.

4) Protects the use of pot and recreational vice, meaning such is seen as consistent with some metaphysics.

5) The right to not incriminate yourself recognizes the truth of the kingdom of god and the falseness of society. If you read the last phrase, “nor shall private property be taken for public use” the word “use” signifies one use, not many uses derived from the goal of increasing the tax base. The ignorance of this letter of the law exposes the supremes.

6) This just protects us from false or unspecified communing by a few or one.

7) protects us from being decided about by one over empowered judge, as opposed to the less inhibited deliberation of many. It is absolutely a false communing that takes away the deliberation by many for the decision of one or three. We need more and more jurists, people should learn to think together, for that is wisdom.

8) I personally believe there are instances when the media inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment upon individuals.

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

Read this carefully, it is a logical tautology. A right that is retained can not denied or disparaged, and a right denied or disparaged is not retained. So what is this about? It is about the people retaining rights through aggregate actions. For instance if the instances of young drinking driving incidents are  reduced, lower the drinking age, if it goes up, raise the drinking age.  If people are learning on their own, lower the amount of required schooling.


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

Read this carefully; in a backhanded way it protects local decisions being made in peaceful assemblies, as local officials are neither state nor people. It affirms how more relevant powers than the federal government has, exist locally, and it means things like health care, should be discussed by individual states. 
One more caveat: 

While the bill of rights is what it is, the paragraph against bills of credit, in article one of the constitution infringes on a natural right and way to trade goods and not be forced to use money.




While the bill of rights is what it is, the paragraph against bills of credit, in article one infringes on a natural right and way to trade goods and not be forced to use money.
I know I speak to the universe.



While the bill of rights is what it is, the paragraph against bills of credit, in article one infringes on a natural right and way to trade goods and not be forced to use money.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: