did the USSC cause a problem with the bill or rights.

[Trip]

then i will ask you THEN , show me where the founders state a federal bill of rights ..that [a federal document].....is needed to protect rights of the people from the states....before the civil war when did our federal constitution speak to the states?

#1 The Founders were FOUNDING the federal government, NOT THE STATES! They would not have been making statements ABOUT THE STATES! The States already existed before the Constitution, and the Founders, as colonies, and they were "self-governed" and generally by the people themselves. You ignore this fact in making a claim that the "the Bill of Rights" only applied to the federal government, which is true, but pretend that suddenly "rights" themselves have no bearing on state governments, which is entirely UNTRUE!

#2 The very idea that "rights" do not pertain to the state governments is ludicrous. The state constitutions all have references to rights, and have all been founded on individual rights, and obligations since colonies, and the application of common law. THe general problem with "Rights" historically, is that the federal governments, like Kings, have assumed themselves free of obligation to observe the rights of these citizens, that they were answerable to the local governments and the citizenry themselves.

#3 This is why the states are recognized to be sovereign, and their authorities cannot be taken by the federal government. However individual "rights" are not any authority of the federal government but of the people themselves. Those individual "rights" do not flow from the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, but from the unalienable individual rights that are innate to each individual, and do not come from the government NOR ANY CONSTITUTION (Reference the Declaration of Independence)! For you to pretend that Rights are not applicable to the States, you have to ENTIRELY SUBVERT THE FOUNDERS view of Rights, as well as every philosopher to precede them and the Constitution.

It is not as if Rights were not denied by states, to claim such, again is ridiculous. In fact slavery was instituted into law, not by the federal government, but rather by States, and the dictatorial corruption of state judiciaries transferring temporary indentured servitude into perpetual servitude.

you make think it non sen-sense its not, what powers are given under article 1 section 8 to the congress OVER the people?

It is absolutely nonsense! It is blithering idiocy to imagine that rights do not apply to states, because if the states are free to take our rights away, either by majority dictate (democracy), or by rule of the few government elites (oligarchy), then our rights have no meaning!

If we have no right to freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, property, or to arms because the States can dictate these rights away, then it really does not matter about the federal government's prohibitions to act against freedom of religion, speech, assembly, property, or to keep and bear arms.

The Bill of Rights would be entirely IRRELEVANT, because we already would not have those rights!

Make no mistake, the Statist-globalists recognize this ignorance of not only the people, but also the corruption some of the Court decisions, and the fully intend to institute the denial of property, and property rights, via those local governments, and local dictates. This is the entirely the method of corruption employed by the U.N. assautl upon tis country of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.

Source: "America's Choice: Freedom or Sustainable Development".

where is the authority in the u.s. constitution for its courts, for controversies between american citizens and the untied states?

You're straying FAR from our discussion, in trying to alienate rights from the federal government, and wrongly asserting that rights are the same as judicial authority between citizens and the federal government. Elsewhere in other threads in which you've participated, we've already established the authority of "judicial review" so I'm not going to assert that authority here.

these things are what Madison and Hamilton looked at, no delegated powers of congress or of the courts over individual citizens.......if the federal government has no authority over american citizens, why is a bill of rights needed?

the founders are arguing over the federal government and its powers, they are not arguing over the powers of the states, ......these men in the constitutional conventions are members of a state governments, are they going to argue, they need limits on their very own state government,............with a federal document?

The bolded text above is precisely my own argument!

Yet you are taking the fact of the "Bill of Rights" is not written to be applicable to the States (because that document is focused on constituting the federal government), and misconstruing this as the fact that the States themselves do not have to observe individual rights, which is not only ludicrous, but extremely dangerous in destroying rights having any meaning whatsoever!

rights are individual rights, that is why america has a republican government, and not a democratic one....which is why Madison is stating about the senate being in state hands and not in the peoples hands, becuase when the people have power they act as a collective body.

the house is a collective body by it very nature, becuase it is a democracy, the senate was in state hands and is a aristocracy, and becuase it is, it tempers the collective body of the house from passing laws based on the whims of the people, and Madison is stating in federalist 63

"The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former"

We are not a Republic just because of recognition of Rights, but are a Republic, and specifically a Constitutional Republic, because the authority of government is limited to certain enumerated powers by the Constitution, and not expanded by any democratic populous desire. The limitations of those enumerated powers, comes from the protection of individual rights, which is PRECISELY WHY the Founders viewed it would be unnecessary, and even "dangerous" to include a Bill of Rights - those rights are already incorporated throughout the Constitution by limiting government action.

In fact this is precisely the point Madison is making in your quotation from Federalist #63. You cut off the fact that Madison is comparing ancient societies based on populist majority influence, which are his referenced "these", specifically, "... the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients ". Our form of government, the latter, "totally excludes" the people from having any influence in any collective capacity - i.e. majority populist desire has no effect upon what government might legitimately do.

No the House is not any more a collective body, nor "Democratic" simply because its members are provided by populist vote, than was the Senate when members were chosen by the State legislatures.

states are not denying people rights, unless you look at slaves and they were concerned property., states have constitutions with a bill of rights themselves, and they must follow the constitution of their state and secure the rights of the people, per their own constitution.

do you see this what i have posted many times?:

This is precisely our disagreement! The States have Constitutions of their own, but they are not making up their own rights from a separate pool of rights, entirely separate from the pool of rights that the Bill of Rights drew from! No, they are not, and asserting they are is not just ridiculous, but destructive, and involves a corrupt belief that "rights" can be made up by whatever government, to whatever purpose, when this is not the case at all.

In fact I have shown Jefferson himself indicated that the right of of freedom of religion applies to the States as well, despite the state of Connecticut having no such assurance prohibiting the institution of a state religion, in this post HERE.

States have historically denied people all sorts of rights - to property, to freedom of religion, to the right to keep and bear arms, and much more! In fact the federal government's recognition of the only right from the Bill of Rights that is NOT applicable to the States themselves is the 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. Yet the Supreme Court has not indicated any reason why this right to keep and bear arms would not be applied to the States, and yet the Founders themselves are quite vocal in the fact that the right to keep and bear arms, is unalienable, and cannot be denied at all, not even by the States!

"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.

TRANSLATION,: the states after adopting the constitution expressed a desire to prevent the misconstruction, and abuses of its constitutional powers, that declaratory and restrictive clauses be added, so it will give the states and the public, confidence in the new Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

That's true, but nowhere among the legitimate Powers of the States is there any authority to deny rights, and property.

If the States might deny rights, then the recognition of the Declaration of Independence that shook the world, of rights being unalienable, would be rendered invalid, and the DOI would no longer be the Organic Law of this country.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

Nowhere does the DOI indicate that "rights" are just for the federal government to recognize, but rather governments, and whatever "form of government". Contrary to your implication, sovereign states are a form of government. Your interpretation guts the DOI and makes "rights" themselves entirely worthless. You have single-handedy (though not alone in this) managed to make the sacrifice of every American to given their life for this country, a pointless gesture for rights able to be taken and denied by any one of the States.

As a result, frankly, I cannot begin to phrase how deeply I resent your corrupted view of this country and our freedoms.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

Youve continually employed this indication from Adams entirely out of Context. While the Executive may resemble a monarch, he does not have the powers of a monarch. And while the House may resemble a democracy in being popularly elected, and in that "democratic", the authority of the house is not at all derived from populist majority opinion.

We are not a democracy, and deliberately not such. We do not in truth and actual operation have any sort of "mixed" government, but only in superficial appearance.

Madison wrote an amendment to the Constitution, which would have given national sovereignty to the federal government over the states...it was rejected by the states.

Madision did not write an amendment. What Madison arrived at the Constitutional Convention with was his own Virginia Plan, and upon this plan the debates at that Convention were begun. That Virginia Plan was based on the entire transfer of sovereignty from the states, to the federal government. The entirety of the Virginia Plan was rejected by every other member at the Constitutional Convention. Madison can truly be said to be the only statist at that Constitutional Convention, not really a federalist at all, and while he is rewarded with the honorific of "Father of the Constitution", it is an honorific entirely undeserved.

you are acting towards me like haymarket,.......... which you insist I must prove to you that the bill of rights, are not meant for the states, yet you have not given me any evidence where the founders [members of state governments] wanted a federal bill to apply to them.

No, you're acting like that person ... by ignoring what is being said to your argument, and then .

I ADMIT on my own that the "Bill of Rights" is written entirely to be applicable to the Federal government.

What I reject is the insipid flaw of logic, and gross corruption, that those "rights" (not the "Bill of Rights" itself) do not apply to the States themselves, when every writing of the founders upon those rights, inclusive of the Declaration of Independence, indicate that they do.

The Bill of Rights, is NOT any sort of "federal bill" in so far as at it being a law provided by the federal government; it is not any sort of proposed law made by the federal government. But rather that it is a BILL (not federal) in so far as being a "listing of particulars", in this case "rights", that is being applied to the federal government.

Bill, noun

1: an itemized list or a statement of particulars (as a list of materials or of members of a ship's crew)
​

This definition not only is in agreement with the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, but also with the historic recognition of "Bills of Rights" prior to this country.

Evidently a part of your trouble in misunderstanding this, and rights overall, involves your confusion of a "bill" being a proposed law by Congress, with a "Bill of Rights" actually being a listing of particulars.

The Bill of Rights is NOT any sort of "federal" bill, although it is applied in the Constitution to the federal government.

The "rights" recognized in the Constitution are not provided from, nor a grant by, nor created by that actual "Bill of Rights" itself, which only recognizes those Rights themselves that exist appart from that Constitution, inherent to each individual, and as such are as equally applicable to the States as they are the Federal government.

 

[Master PO]

wow, that's long...

Bill of Rights


Document 11

House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
8 June , 21 July , 13 , 18--19 Aug. 1789Annals 1:424--50, 661--65, 707--17, 757--59, 766

[8 June]

Bill of Rights: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

read the statements for the amendments to the constitution. by the house of representatives....

you well see that the collective house is trying to insert limitations on the states, by trying to make them bound to the bill of rights proposals.

however the senate is in the hands of the states, and every amendment that was to be inserted by the house the to limit the states in the federal constitution, are rejected!

and one Madison wanted very much..... was to give the federal government national sovereignty over the states....it was rejected!

the senate rejected any limitations on the states by the constitution.

 

[Trip]

then i will ask you THEN , show me where the founders state a federal bill of rights ..that [a federal document].....is needed to protect rights of the people from the states....before the civil war when did our federal constitution speak to the states?

The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself, are NOT any sort of "federal document", but rather are the result of a compact between the states creating the fiction that is the Federal government; that's a major difference.

 

[Master PO]

The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution itself, are NOT any sort of "federal document", but rather are the result of a compact between the states creating the fiction that is the Federal government; that's a major difference.

the amendments to the constitution are being put before congress the [house] for passage their are about 20 of them, in the house they are wanting to impose the bill of rights on the states, as well as the federal government.

the senate is in the states hands, and they have rejected all the limitations put into the amendments to the constitution which would apply to the states.

On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced his bill proposing amendments consisting of Nine Articles comprising up to 20 Amendments depending on how one counted. Madison initially proposed that the amendments would be incorporated into the body of the Constitution. Through an exhaustive campaign, he persuaded the House to pass most of his slate of amendments. The House rejected the idea of placing the amendments in the body of the Constitution and instead adopted 17 Amendments to be attached separately and sent this bill to the Senate.

The Senate took up his slate of amendments, condensed them into eleven, and removed the language which Madison had included so that they would be integrated into the body of the constitution. The senate also added what became the Ninth Amendment, which was not included in Madison's original slate. To Madison's deep disappointment, they excluded a proposed amendment that guaranteed national sovereignty over the states. By 1791, the last ten of the proposed amendments were ratified and became the Bill of Rights.

the senate is acting in its interest [republican government] and is not going to place a limitation on themselves, by making them adhere to a federal document.

 

[Master PO]

the GPO classifies our founding documents as federal documents

Federal Agencies

 

[Trip]

wow, that's long...

Bill of Rights


Document 11

House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
8 June , 21 July , 13 , 18--19 Aug. 1789Annals 1:424--50, 661--65, 707--17, 757--59, 766

[8 June]

Bill of Rights: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

read the statements for the amendments to the constitution. by the house of representatives....

you well see that the collective house is trying to insert limitations on the states, by trying to make them bound to the bill of rights proposals.

however the senate is in the hands of the states, and every amendment that was to be inserted by the house the to limit the states in the federal constitution, are rejected!

and one Madison wanted very much..... was to give the federal government national sovereignty over the states....it was rejected!

the senate rejected any limitations on the states by the constitution.

:IF: you wish to offer up claim that the States are not obligated to recognize "rights" from the debates of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, then kindly do provide the actual quoted comments from those debates, and not ask me and everyone else to fish for them, or take you at your word. Your text dumps do not suffice. This is entirely different from the Bill of Rights itself being specifically applicable only to the federal government.

Furthermore your claim that the Senate (or House) "rejected any limitations on the states by the Constitution" as fact, is absolutely asinine, and untrue, as there are numerous limitations on the States made by the Constitution. Article 1, Section 10 specifically addresses limits to the states made by the Constitution, as the 10th Amendment itself also recognizes these limitations to the States.


If the right to freedom of religion might be denied by the states, then the prohibition prohibiting the federal government from denying freedom of religion is entirely irrelevant, and Jefferson himself indicated that no such specific prohibition was needed in the Connecticut State constitution to ensure the Danbury Baptists of their freedom of religion.

If the Right of Free speech might be denied by the States, then the prohibition to the federal government from denying free speech is entirely irrelevant.

If the right to assemble is denied by the states, then the prohibition to the federal government from denying assembly is entirely irrelevant.

If the right to keep and bear arms might be denied by the states, and infringed in any portion, then the prohibition to the federal government from infringing in any portion on this right to keep and bear arms is entirely irrelevant.

"Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

Benjamin Martin, "Patriot", paraphrase of Byles Mather, 1776
​

Rather than commenting on the length of my post, you would do well to actually READ and UNDERSTAND it, and not dumping text that you do not understand, and do not even accredit, as you failed to do with the Barron vs Baltimore dump, which was plagiarism, not to mention an annoying dump and an inaccurate representation of the case.

 

[Master PO]

:IF: you wish to offer up claim that the States are not obligated to recognize "rights" from the debates of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, then kindly do provide the actual quoted comments from those debates, and not ask me and everyone else to fish for them, or take you at your word. Your text dumps do not suffice. This is entirely different from the Bill of Rights itself being specifically applicable only to the federal government.

Furthermore your claim that the Senate (or House) "rejected any limitations on the states by the Constitution" as fact, is absolutely asinine, and untrue, as there are numerous limitations on the States made by the Constitution. Article 1, Section 10 specifically addresses limits to the states made by the Constitution, as the 10th Amendment itself also recognizes these limitations to the States.


If the right to freedom of religion might be denied by the states, then the prohibition prohibiting the federal government from denying freedom of religion is entirely irrelevant, and Jefferson himself indicated that no such specific prohibition was needed in the Connecticut State constitution to ensure the Danbury Baptists of their freedom of religion.

If the Right of Free speech might be denied by the States, then the prohibition to the federal government from denying free speech is entirely irrelevant.

If the right to assemble is denied by the states, then the prohibition to the federal government from denying assembly is entirely irrelevant.

If the right to keep and bear arms might be denied by the states, and infringed in any portion, then the prohibition to the federal government from infringing in any portion on this right to keep and bear arms is entirely irrelevant.

"Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

Benjamin Martin, "Patriot", paraphrase of Byles Mather, 1776
​

Rather than commenting on the length of my post, you would do well to actually READ and UNDERSTAND it, and not dumping text that you do not understand, and do not even accredit, as you failed to do with the Barron vs Baltimore dump, which was plagiarism, not to mention an annoying dump and an inaccurate representation of the case.

again you are asking me to make a proof, instead you show me how the bill of rights applies to states.

i asked you to read the link i posted.

the house in its arguments ....some members are inserting "no state" in the amendments to PLACE a limit the state governments, and this was achieved by the house with 20 amendments...again the senate killed those amendments, and removed those limitations on states which had place there by the house.

the senate being a voice of the states, did not pass a bill of rights which pertained to the states, only the federal government.

 

[Trip]

the GPO classifies our founding documents as federal documents

Federal Agencies

Yes, but them being federal documents in that capacity, is no the same capacity you were applying to that phrase, in so far as implying that the federal government created the rights, which is utter fallacy, and a gross corruption regarding rights and their appearance in the Constitution. Quite obviously the Constitution is a federal document, but it was still not created by the federal government; it's a compact among the states.

Also the fact that those rights only appear as Amendments does not mean they are not "integrated into the body of the constitution." Amendments are in fact, by definition, integrated into the body of the Constitution. Beyond that, the absence of the Bill of Rights from the Constitution would not remove them from being integrated in the Constitution, as they are not provided by the Constitution itself, but are the cause of every form, function, structure, detail, check and balance of that constitution.

Also the applicability of rights to the states has nothing to do with the states sovereignty. States "powers" only involves sovereign authority of the state territory and its governance, and does not serve as any sort of license to deny rights, confiscate property without due process, institute a state religion, or deny the right to keep and bear arms, which are not the states legitimate powers and are tyrannous acts - i.e. illegitimate governance - in *this* country.

 

[Trip]

again you are asking me to make a proof, instead you show me how the bill of rights applies to states.

i asked you to read the link i posted.

the house in its arguments ....some members are inserting "no state" in the amendments to PLACE a limit the state governments, and this was achieved by the house with 20 amendments...again the senate killed those amendments, and removed those limitations on states which had place there by the house.

the senate being a voice of the states, did not pass a bill of rights which pertained to the states, only the federal government.

You're not listening. Sit down and actually read, and understand these three simple points, with them all together being a crucial distinction on your statement about the Bill of Rights, above in bold.

●1 The Bill of Rights does not apply to the States; rights do apply to the states.

●2 The Bill of rights is a portion of the U.S. Constitution written to only constitute the federal government, thereby that Bill of Rights is only applied to the federal government.

●3 Rights do NOT originate from the Bill of Rights, but are innate to the individual, and unalienable. This is recognized by another founding document, and among the Organic Laws of this country, the Declaration of Independence. Rights are not a grant by the Bill of Rights, nor by the state constitutions. THEREFORE states are obligated to recognize rights, and do, and have! The only Right that the states have not recognized, is the right to keep and bear arms, and that is from corruption by the states as much as the federal government and Court itself.
​

Your recognition that the Senate rejected the dictation of those rights by the federal government upon the states is really irrelevant.

As I have recognized before, the Federal government has no authority under the Constitution to dictate laws to the state territories, and the imposition of rights by the federal government would serve as entree to dictate laws to the states, and the corruption of the 14th Amendment has actually resulted in that.

The only territory the federal government has authority to write laws involving are 1) the 10-by-10 square mile are we know today as D.C., 2) forts, arsenals and military bases, 3) federal territory within the states, such as national parks, and 4) territories that are prospective future states.

The reason this Senate vote is irrelevant is that the States are already obligated to recognize individual rights, and that is seen in the common law practice of due process, prohibition of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, recognition of freedoms of speech, etc., and even emininent domain.

Also the clear statement of the Declaration of Independence itself indicates the obligation of "any form of government" to recognize those rights.

"Rights" are no more the legitimate authority of the states create or deny, any more so than they are the authority of the federal government to create, or deny. The DOI's statement of "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" has real meaning. The various States are not our creator.

If you would disagree with this fact, then you throw out the Declaration of Independence as our Organic Law and founding document, and single-handedly will have made every American to have lost their life in defense of this country and individual freedoms, a gross perversion and travesty.

And frankly, if that is all this country is, then **** it, let the Progressive fascists have it, gut it, and kill it. But my rights will still be unalienable, and I will still defend them with my very life if need be.

AGAIN, with emphasis, if you want to assert any statement from those debates regarding the Bill of Rights then you need to specifically reference that statement, and not just make vague claims thereto.

 

[Trip]

Barron vs Baltimore


Ernst,

You've previously referenced Barron vs Baltimore as a definitive statement of by the Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States, while you've claimed that the States have their own authority to fabricate, or recognize, whatever rights they might want to.

However the state's own court chose to recognize Barron's suit against Baltimore, and awarded Barron $4,500 in damages, to be awarded to Barron by the city of Baltimore. The State Court's resolve was not necessarily based on Rights, but the fact that Barron had suffered damage to his wharf by the city having silting up the harbor at his wharf due to the city's construction of roads.


By the Supreme Court's own standards, it should not have stepped into the state court's own territory, particuly given Chief Justice John Marshall's own claim that the Bill of Rights are not directly applicable to the states! The Supreme Court, by its own indication, had no jurisdiction to to hear the case, much less rule against Barron and the State court itself.

This argument is consistent with what I (and Scalia) have said in a thread on this forum about the Supreme Court not having jurisdiction to hear the DOMA. IN the case of the DOMA, the Congress had authority and to write laws in application to the Federal govenrment. In the case of Barron vs Baltimore, the State court has jurisdiction over the obligation for damages the city of Baltimore to Barron's wharf.

What Barron vs Baltimore actually demonstrates in the corruption of the Supreme Court, and Marshall himself, and willingness to disregard even state authority over its own decisions, in order to find excuse to assert its own authority. Contrary to Marshall's representation, the case was not about rights at all, but rather the damages caused by the city of Baltimore.

This corruption of the Court is further shown by Marshall's gross 'reach' in referencing Article 1, Section 9's prohibition of ex post facto laws,, and bills of attainder as being only applicable to the federal government. The fact is that the prohibition of these clearly corrupt legislative styles of ex post fact laws, and bills of attainder, is something prohibited to both the federal government AND the States themselves, long before the existence of either, as a part of the general laws in Anglo-American culture, or "the common law".

Therefore the recognition of these Article 1, Section 9 prohibitions to Congress, does NOT support Marshall's argument in Barron vs Baltimore that the exclusions of these nefarious legislative acts only applies to the Federal government, but rather supports my own argument that actually the Constitution itself applies only to the federal government, and does NOT in any way exclude the State governments from that prohibition, just as Bill of Rights does not exclude the states from recognizing Rights!


Ernst, you have asked me to provide proof that the Bill of Rights apply to the states. This is an inaccurate and misleading expectation. What you yourself should provide proof by any one of the founders that the States are excluded from having to observe individual "RIGHTS" themselves. However such evidence does not exist, and even by Jefferson's own hand, I've shown his indication that that the state of Connecticut is still prohibited from institution of a religion, and denying the freedom of relgion of the Danbury Baptists, DESPITE the fact that the Connecticut constitution had no such prohibition to the State to institute any particular region.

 

[Master PO]

Barron vs Baltimore


Ernst,

You've previously referenced Barron vs Baltimore as a definitive statement of by the Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States, while you've claimed that the States have their own authority to fabricate, or recognize, whatever rights they might want to.

However the state's own court chose to recognize Barron's suit against Baltimore, and awarded Barron $4,500 in damages, to be awarded to Barron by the city of Baltimore. The State Court's resolve was not necessarily based on Rights, but the fact that Barron had suffered damage to his wharf by the city having silting up the harbor at his wharf due to the city's construction of roads.


By the Supreme Court's own standards, it should not have stepped into the state court's own territory, particuly given Chief Justice John Marshall's own claim that the Bill of Rights are not directly applicable to the states! The Supreme Court, by its own indication, had no jurisdiction to to hear the case, much less rule against Barron and the State court itself.

This argument is consistent with what I (and Scalia) have said in a thread on this forum about the Supreme Court not having jurisdiction to hear the DOMA. IN the case of the DOMA, the Congress had authority and to write laws in application to the Federal govenrment. In the case of Barron vs Baltimore, the State court has jurisdiction over the obligation for damages the city of Baltimore to Barron's wharf.

What Barron vs Baltimore actually demonstrates in the corruption of the Supreme Court, and Marshall himself, and willingness to disregard even state authority over its own decisions, in order to find excuse to assert its own authority. Contrary to Marshall's representation, the case was not about rights at all, but rather the damages caused by the city of Baltimore.

This corruption of the Court is further shown by Marshall's gross 'reach' in referencing Article 1, Section 9's prohibition of ex post facto laws,, and bills of attainder as being only applicable to the federal government. The fact is that the prohibition of these clearly corrupt legislative styles of ex post fact laws, and bills of attainder, is something prohibited to both the federal government AND the States themselves, long before the existence of either, as a part of the general laws in Anglo-American culture, or "the common law".

Therefore the recognition of these Article 1, Section 9 prohibitions to Congress, does NOT support Marshall's argument in Barron vs Baltimore that the exclusions of these nefarious legislative acts only applies to the Federal government, but rather supports my own argument that actually the Constitution itself applies only to the federal government, and does NOT in any way exclude the State governments from that prohibition, just as Bill of Rights does not exclude the states from recognizing Rights!


Ernst, you have asked me to provide proof that the Bill of Rights apply to the states. This is an inaccurate and misleading expectation. What you yourself should provide proof by any one of the founders that the States are excluded from having to observe individual "RIGHTS" themselves. However such evidence does not exist, and even by Jefferson's own hand, I've shown his indication that that the state of Connecticut is still prohibited from institution of a religion, and denying the freedom of relgion of the Danbury Baptists, DESPITE the fact that the Connecticut constitution had no such prohibition to the State to institute any particular region.

i am not a lawyer at all, however members of the court were and knew the founders, john Marshall himself and the other 4 judges, in unanimous decision, knew the bill never applied to the states.

any chance for the bill of rights to apply to the states died, when the amendments went over the senate, where the states themselves removed the words"no shall shall".

even Madison proposals for national sovereignty over the states failed, as they removed it from the proposals....and killed it in the senate.

why would a senate with people picked by the states, want to include in the bill of rights limitations on themselves, by stating "no state shall"

 

[Master PO]

Barron vs Baltimore


Ernst,

You've previously referenced Barron vs Baltimore as a definitive statement of by the Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States, while you've claimed that the States have their own authority to fabricate, or recognize, whatever rights they might want to.

However the state's own court chose to recognize Barron's suit against Baltimore, and awarded Barron $4,500 in damages, to be awarded to Barron by the city of Baltimore. The State Court's resolve was not necessarily based on Rights, but the fact that Barron had suffered damage to his wharf by the city having silting up the harbor at his wharf due to the city's construction of roads.


By the Supreme Court's own standards, it should not have stepped into the state court's own territory, particuly given Chief Justice John Marshall's own claim that the Bill of Rights are not directly applicable to the states! The Supreme Court, by its own indication, had no jurisdiction to to hear the case, much less rule against Barron and the State court itself.

This argument is consistent with what I (and Scalia) have said in a thread on this forum about the Supreme Court not having jurisdiction to hear the DOMA. IN the case of the DOMA, the Congress had authority and to write laws in application to the Federal govenrment. In the case of Barron vs Baltimore, the State court has jurisdiction over the obligation for damages the city of Baltimore to Barron's wharf.

What Barron vs Baltimore actually demonstrates in the corruption of the Supreme Court, and Marshall himself, and willingness to disregard even state authority over its own decisions, in order to find excuse to assert its own authority. Contrary to Marshall's representation, the case was not about rights at all, but rather the damages caused by the city of Baltimore.

This corruption of the Court is further shown by Marshall's gross 'reach' in referencing Article 1, Section 9's prohibition of ex post facto laws,, and bills of attainder as being only applicable to the federal government. The fact is that the prohibition of these clearly corrupt legislative styles of ex post fact laws, and bills of attainder, is something prohibited to both the federal government AND the States themselves, long before the existence of either, as a part of the general laws in Anglo-American culture, or "the common law".

Therefore the recognition of these Article 1, Section 9 prohibitions to Congress, does NOT support Marshall's argument in Barron vs Baltimore that the exclusions of these nefarious legislative acts only applies to the Federal government, but rather supports my own argument that actually the Constitution itself applies only to the federal government, and does NOT in any way exclude the State governments from that prohibition, just as Bill of Rights does not exclude the states from recognizing Rights!


Ernst, you have asked me to provide proof that the Bill of Rights apply to the states. This is an inaccurate and misleading expectation. What you yourself should provide proof by any one of the founders that the States are excluded from having to observe individual "RIGHTS" themselves. However such evidence does not exist, and even by Jefferson's own hand, I've shown his indication that that the state of Connecticut is still prohibited from institution of a religion, and denying the freedom of relgion of the Danbury Baptists, DESPITE the fact that the Connecticut constitution had no such prohibition to the State to institute any particular region.

well we are going to never see eye to eye then, i maintain the bill was never meant for the states, and the preamble proves it also, as it mentions confidence in the government, meaning the federal government...not state governments.

 

[Trip]

i am not a lawyer at all, however members of the court were and knew the founders, john Marshall himself and the other 4 judges, in unanimous decision, knew the bill never applied to the states.

any chance for the bill of rights to apply to the states died, when the amendments went over the senate, where the states themselves removed the words"no shall shall".

even Madison proposals for national sovereignty over the states failed, as they removed it from the proposals....and killed it in the senate.

why would a senate with people picked by the states, want to include in the bill of rights limitations on themselves, by stating "no state shall"

You have a total of 3 dead horses you need to stop beating here.

Once again you reference the "Bill" rather than rights themselves. The "Bill" addressing the federal government is not at issue here! NOR is the fact that Article 1 Section 9 applies to the federal government either, despite Marshall using this as an argument in Barron vs Baltimore.

Despite Article 1, Section 9's reference to "bills of attainder" and "ex post facto laws", both the states and the federal government are prohibited these sorts of laws, and long before the foundation of this country, which makes Marshall's argument not only inaccurate, but a very corrupt rationale, for a decision the court had no authority to make, even by your own argument, Ernst!

The Bill (of rights) obviously address the federal government and Constitution. We got this. We don't disagree on this. You can stop beating that dead horse#1. The issue is "rights" and not the "bill of rights".

Would you allege that the Bill of Rights is the actual source of those rights and if those 10 Amendments are removed by altering, that the rights no longer exist? I am guessing not. So rights must come from "someplace else."

However you seem to believe that the States themselves can create and deny rights. WHERE do those founders indicate that the states might create or deny rights? WHERE is the idea that rights might come from the States themselves any sort of philosophy of this country?

Madison's proposals of national sovereignty are entirely irrelevant. Madison's idea of transferring sovernity from the States to the Federal government was entirely rejected at the Constitutional Convention, and you allege that *ONE* amendment by Madison was rejected among the other Amendments, though I myself have never seen this. This "state sovereignty" is a dead horse #2, no one is contesting state sovereignty, and the recognition of individual rights by the states does not violate any degree of that state sovereignty, and has not done so for more than 200 years!

IN FACT that state sovereignty comes ENTIRELY from those individual rights and freedoms, with the sovereignty of the state being the collective of citizens individual sovereignties over themselves, and does not involve any authority by the states to deny those rights.

Another dead horse #3 you're beating, without even providing the horse, is the claim that the rejection of the inclusion of the BILL of Rights in application to the States by the Senate, involves any indication that RIGHTS themselves don't apply to the states, when quite obviously they do, and we have more than 200 years of British common law tradition recognizing those rights. The objections by the Senate may well have been involving the fact that the Bill of Rights entirely addresses the Federal government, and not the states themselves, and not rejection of the states having to recognize rights themselves. Nowhere have you established that the Senate's vote on the Bill of Rights applying to the states makes them immune to observing rights - dead horse #3. The states have no authority, no sovereign "power", to deny individual rights; and claiming such violates every principle upon which this country is based.

.

 

[Master PO]

New York Ratification of Constitution--26 July 1788

Bill of Rights: New York Ratification of Constitution

That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

That the militia should not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection.

That standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power.

That, in time of peace, no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate, in such manner as the laws may direct.

That no person ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, or be exiled, or deprived of his privileges, franchises, life, liberty, or property, but by due process of law.

That no person ought to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb, for one and the same offence; nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same offence.

That every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to an inquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful; and that such inquiry or removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when, on account of public danger, the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

That (except in the government of the land and naval forces, and of the militia when in actual service, and in cases of impeachment) a presentment or indictment by a grand jury ought to be observed as a necessary preliminary to the trial of all crimes cognizable by the judiciary of the United States; and such trial should be speedy, public, and by an impartial jury of the county where the crime was committed; and that no person can be found guilty without the unanimous consent of such jury. But in cases of crimes not committed within any county of any of the United States, and in cases of crimes committed within any county in which a general insurrection may prevail, or which may be in the possession of a foreign enemy, the inquiry and trial may be in such county as the Congress shall by law direct; which county, in the two cases last mentioned, should be as near as conveniently may be to that county in which the crime may have been committed;--and that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused ought to be informed of the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with his accusers and the witnesses against him, to have the means of producing his witnesses, and the assistance of counsel for his defence; and should not be compelled to give evidence against himself.

That the trial by jury, in the extent that it obtains by the common law of England, is one of the greatest securities to the rights of a free people, and ought to remain inviolate.

That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his papers, or his property; and therefore, that all warrants to search suspected places, or seize any freeman, his papers, or property, without information, upon oath or affirmation, of sufficient cause, are grievous and oppressive; and that all general warrants (or such in which the place or person suspected are not particularly designated) are dangerous, and ought not to be granted.

That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for their common good, or to instruct their representatives, and that every person has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.

That the freedom of the press ought not to be violated or restrained.

That the prohibition contained in the said Constitution, against ex post facto laws, extends only to laws concerning crimes.

here are rights from NY before the bill of rights ever took shape



North Carolina Ratifying Convention, Declaration of Rights and Other Amendments
1 Aug. 1788


Declaration of Rights.

1. That there are certain natural rights, of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

2. That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates, therefore, are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them.

3. That government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.

4. That no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate public emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services, which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge, or any other public office, to be hereditary.

5. That the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers of government should be separate and distinct, and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the public burdens: they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into the mass of the people, and the vacancies be supplied by certain and regular elections, in which all or any part of the former members to be eligible or ineligible, as the rules of the constitution of government and the laws shall direct.

6. That elections of representatives in the legislature ought to be free and frequent, and all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, ought to have the right of suffrage; and no aid, charge, tax, or fee, can be set, rated, or levied, upon the people without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected; nor can they be bound by any law to which they have not in like manner assented for the public good.

7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without the consent of the representatives of the people in the legislature, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

8. That, in all capital and criminal prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence, and be allowed counsel in his favor, and a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the government of the land and naval forces; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself.

9. That no freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, privileges, or franchises, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.

10. That every freeman, restrained of his liberty, is entitled to a remedy to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same if unlawful; and that such remedy ought not to be denied nor delayed.

11. That, in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is one of the greatest securities to the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.

12. That every freeman ought to find a certain remedy, by recourse to the laws, for all injuries and wrongs he may receive in his person, property, or character; he ought to obtain right and justice freely without sale, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay; and that all establishments or regulations contravening these rights are oppressive and unjust.

13. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

14. That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his papers and property; all warrants, therefore, to search suspected places, or to apprehend any suspected person, without specially naming or describing the place or person, are dangerous, and ought not to be granted.

15. That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together, to consult for the common good, or to instruct their representatives; and that every freeman has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.

16. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; that freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.

17. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

18. That no soldier, in time of peace, ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war, in such manner only as the laws direct.

19. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

20. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

 

[Master PO]

Virginia Ratifying Convention, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution
27 June 1788Elliot 3:657--61

Mr. Wythe reported, from the committee appointed, such amendments to the proposed Constitution of government for the United States as were by them deemed necessary to be recommended to the consideration of the Congress which shall first assemble under the said Constitution, to be acted upon according to the mode prescribed in the 5th article thereof; and he read the same in his place, and afterwards delivered them in at the clerk's table, where the same were again read, and are as follows:--

"That there be a declaration or bill of rights asserting, and securing from encroachment, the essential and unalienable rights of the people, in some such manner as the following:--

"1st. That there are certain natural rights, of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

"2d. That all power is naturally invested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates therefore are their trustees and agents, at all times amenable to them.

"3d. That government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.

"4th. That no man or set of men are entitled to separate or exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services, which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge, or any other public office, to be hereditary.

"5th. That the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government should be separate and distinct; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the public burdens, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into the mass of the people, and the vacancies be supplied by certain and regular elections, in which all or any part of the former members to be eligible or ineligible, as the rules of the Constitution of government, and the laws, shall direct.

"6th. That the elections of representatives in the legislature ought to be free and frequent, and all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, ought to have the right of suffrage; and no aid, charge, tax, or fee, can be set, rated, or levied, upon the people without their own consent, or that of their representatives, so elected; nor can they be bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.

"7th. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without the consent of the representatives of the people in the legislature, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

"8th. That, in all criminal and capital prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence, and be allowed counsel in his favor, and to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the government of the land and naval forces; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself.

"9th. That no freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, privileges, or franchises, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.

"10th. That every freeman restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy, to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same, if unlawful, and that such remedy ought not to be denied nor delayed.

"11th. That, in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is one of the greatest securities to the rights of the people, and to remain sacred and inviolable.

"12th. That every freeman ought to find a certain remedy, by recourse to the laws, for all injuries and wrongs he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, without sale, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay; and that all establishments or regulations contravening these rights are oppressive and unjust.

"13th. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

"14th. That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his papers, and property; all warrants, therefore, to search suspected places, or seize any freeman, his papers, or property, without information on oath (or affirmation of a person religiously scrupulous of taking an oath) of legal and sufficient cause, are grievous and oppressive; and all general warrants to search suspected places, or to apprehend any suspected person, without specially naming or describing the place or person, are dangerous, and ought not to be granted.

"15th. That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for the common good, or to instruct their representatives; and that every freeman has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.

"16th. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; that the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

"18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the law directs.

"19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

"20th. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others."

 

[Master PO]

Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Art. I.--All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

II.--It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great creator and preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

III.--As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of GOD, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And the people of this Commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.

Provided notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.

And all monies paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends: otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said monies are raised.

And every denomination of christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the Commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: And no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

IV.--The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled.

V.--All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.

VI.--No man, nor corporation, or association of men, have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public; and this title being in nature neither hereditary, nor transmissible to children, or descendants, or relations by blood, the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge, is absurd and unnatural.

VII.--Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; Therefore the people alone have an incontestible, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.

VIII.--In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments.

IX.--All elections ought to be free; and all the inhabitants of this Commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments.

X.--Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary: But no part of the property of any individual, can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people: In fine, the people of this Commonwealth are not controlable by any other laws, than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent. And whenever the public exigencies require, that the property of any individual should be appropriated to public uses, he shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor.

XI.--Every subject of the Commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws.

XII.--No subject shall be held to answer for any crime or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his council, at his election. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate; but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.

And the legislature shall not make any law, that shall subject any person to a capital or infamous punishment, excepting for the government of the army and navy, without trial by jury.

XIII.--In criminal prosecutions, the verification of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is one of the greatest securities of the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.

XIV.--Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.

XV.--In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more persons, except in cases in which it has heretofore been otherways used and practised, the parties have a right to a trial by jury; and this method of procedure shall be held sacred, unless, in causes arising on the high-seas, and such as relate to mariners wages, the legislature shall hereafter find it necessary to alter it.

XVI.--The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this Commonwealth.

XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

XVIII.--A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty, and to maintain a free government: The people ought, consequently, to have a particular attention to all those principles, in the choice of their officers and representatives: And they have a right to require of their law-givers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of the Commonwealth.

XIX.--The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives; and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.

XX.--The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for.

XXI.--The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

XXII.--The legislature ought frequently to assemble for the redress of grievances, for correcting, strengthening, and confirming the laws, and for making new laws, as the common good may require.

XXIII.--No subsidy, charge, tax, impost, or duties, ought to be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of the people, or their representatives in the legislature.

XXIV.--Laws made to punish for actions done before the existence of such laws, and which have not been declared crimes by preceding laws, are unjust, oppressive, and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of a free government.

XXV.--No subject ought, in any case, or in any time, to be declared guilty of treason or felony by the legislature.

XXVI.--No magistrate or court of law shall demand excessive bail or sureties, impose excessive fines, or inflict cruel or unusual punishments.

XXVII.--In time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; and in time of war such quarters ought not to be made but by the civil magistrate, in a manner ordained by the legislature.

XXVIII.--No person can in any case be subjected to law-martial, or to any penalties or pains, by virtue of that law, except those employed in the army or navy, and except the militia in actual service, but by authority of the legislature.

XXIX.--It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. It is therefore not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, and of every citizen, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well; and that they should have honorable salaries ascertained and established by standing laws.

XXX.--In the government of this Commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.

 

[Master PO]

Delaware Declaration of Rights
11 Sept. 1776Sources 338--40

Section 1. That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole.

Sect. 2. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings; and that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship or maintain any ministry contrary to or against his own free will and consent, and that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.

Sect. 3. That all persons professing the Christian religion ought forever to enjoy equal rights and privileges in this state, unless, under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness or safety of society.

Sect. 4. That people of this state have the sole exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.

Sect. 5. That persons intrusted with the Legislative and Executive Powers are the Trustees and Servants of the public, and as such accountable for their conduct; wherefore whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered by the Legislative singly, or a treacherous combination of both, the people may, and of right ought to establish a new, or reform the old government.

Sect. 6. That the right in the people to participate in the Legislature, is the foundation of liberty and of all free government, and for this end all elections ought to be free and frequent, and every freeman, having sufficient evidence of a permanent common interest with, and attachment to the community, hath a right of suffrage.

Sect. 7. That no power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, ought to be exercised unless by the Legislature.

Sect. 8. That for redress of grievances, and for amending and strengthening of the laws, the Legislature ought to be frequently convened.

Sect. 9. That every man hath a right to petition the Legislature for the redress of grievances in a peaceable and orderly manner.

Sect. 10. That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expense of that protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent thereto; but no part of a man's property can be justly taken from him or applied to public uses without his own consent or that of his legal Representatives: Nor can any man that is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms in any case be justly compelled thereto if he will pay such equivalent.

Sect. 11. That retrospective laws, punishing offences committed before the existence of such laws, are oppressive and unjust, and ought not to be made.

Sect. 12. That every freeman for every injury done him in his goods, lands or person, by any other person, ought to have remedy by the course of the law of the land, and ought to have justice and right for the injury done to him freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the law of the land.

Sect. 13. That trial by jury of facts where they arise is one of the greatest securities of the lives, liberties and estates of the people.

Sect. 14. That in all prosecutions for criminal offences, every man hath a right to be informed of the accusation against him, to be allowed counsel, to be confronted with the accusers or witnesses, to examine evidence on oath in his favour, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, without whose unanimous consent he ought not to be found guilty.

Sect. 15. That no man in the Courts of Common Law ought to be compelled to give evidence against himself.

Sect. 16. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

Sect. 17. That all warrants without oath to search suspected places, or to seize any person or his property, are grievous and oppressive; and all general warrants to search suspected places, or to apprehend all persons suspected, without naming or describing the place or any person in special, are illegal and ought not to be granted.

Sect. 18. That a well regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.

Sect. 19. That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the Legislature.

Sect. 20. That in all cases and at all times the military ought to be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Sect. 21. That no soldier ought to be quartered in any house in time of peace without the consent of the owner; and in time of war in such manner only as the Legislature shall direct.

Sect. 22. That the independency and uprightness of judges are essential to the impartial administration of justice, and a great security to the rights and liberties of the people.

Sect. 23. That the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved.

 

[Master PO]

Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights
Thorpe 5:3082--84

I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship: And that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.

III. That the people of this State have the sole, exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.

IV. That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently derived from, the people; therefore all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them.

V. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or sett of men, who are a part only of that community; And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal.

VI. That those who are employed in the legislative and executive business of the State, may be restrained from oppression, the people have a right, at such periods as they may think proper, to reduce their public officers to a private station, and supply the vacancies by certain and regular elections.

VII. That all elections ought to be free; and that all free men having a sufficient evident common interest with, and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers, or to be elected into office.

VIII. That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent thereto: But no part of a man's property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of his legal representatives: Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent, nor are the people bound by any laws, but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good.

IX. That in all prosecutions for criminal offences, a man hath a right to be heard by himself and his council, to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses, to call for evidence in his favour, and a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the country, without the unanimous consent of which jury he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; nor can any man be justly deprived of his liberty except by the laws of the land, or the judgment of his peers.

X. That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions free from search and seizure, and therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording a sufficient foundation for them, and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted.

XI. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the parties have a right to trial by jury, which ought to be held sacred.

XII. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

XIV. That a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep a government free: The people ought therefore to pay particular attention to these points in the choice of officers and representatives, and have a right to exact a due and constant regard to them, from their legislatures and magistrates, in the making and executing such laws as are necessary for the good government of the state.

XV. That all men have a natural inherent right to emigrate from one state to another that will receive them, or to form a new state in vacant countries, or in such countries as they can purchase, whenever they think that thereby they may promote their own happiness.

XVI. That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances, by address, petition, or remonstrance.

 

[Master PO]

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT 1777

I. THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Therefore, no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one Years, nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own consent, after they arrive to such age, or bound by law, for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like.

II. That private property ought to be subservient to public uses, when necessity requires it; nevertheless, whenever any particular man's property is taken for the use of the public, the owner ought to receive an equivalent in money.

III. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding, regulated by the word of GOD; and that no man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of his conscience; nor can any man who professes the protestant religion, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right, as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiment, or peculiar mode of religious worship, and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatsoever, that shall, in any case, interfere with, or in any manner controul, the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship: nevertheless, every sect or denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord's day, and keep up, and support, some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of GOD.

IV. That the people of this State have the sole, exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.

V. That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently, derived from, the people; therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants. and at all times accountable to them.

VI. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family or set of men, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish, government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.

VII. That those who are employed in the legislative and executive business of the State, may be restrained from oppression, the people have a right, at such periods as they may think proper, to reduce their public officers to a private station, and supply the vacancies by certain and regular elections.

VIII. That all elections ought to be free; and that all freemen. having a sufficient, evident, common interest with, and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers, or be elected into office.

IX. That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore, is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expense of that protection, and yield his personal service, when necessary, or an equivalent thereto; but no part of a man's property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of his legal representatives; nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent; nor are the people bound by any law' but such as they have, in like manner, assented to, for their common good.

X. That, in all prosecutions for criminal offences, a man hath a right to be heard, by himself and his counsel-to demand the cause and nature of his accusation-to be confronted with the witnesses- to call for evidence in his favor, and a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the country; without the unanimous consent of which jury, he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; nor can any man be justly deprived of his liberty, except by the laws of the land or the judgment of his peers.

XI. That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers and possessions free from search or seizure; and therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording a sufficient foundation for them, and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his, her or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted.

XII. That no warrant or writ to attach the person or estate. of any freeholder within this State, shall be issued in civil action, without the person or persons, who may request such warrant or attachment, first make oath, or affirm, before the authority who may be requested to issue the same, that he, or they, are in danger of losing his, her or their debts.

XIII. That, in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the parties have a right to a trial by jury; which ought to be held sacred.

XIV. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; therefore, the freedom of the press ought not be restrained.

XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

XVI. That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free. The people ought, therefore, to pay particular attention to these points, in the choice of officers and representatives, and have a right to exact a due and constant regard to them, from their legislators and magistrates, in the making and executing such laws as are necessary for the good government of the State.

XVII. That all people have a natural and inherent right to emigrate from one State to another, that will receive them, or to form a new State in vacant countries, or in such countries as they can purchase? whenever they think that thereby they can promote their own happiness.

XVIII. That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good-to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances, by address, petition or remonstrance.

XIX. That no person shall be liable to be transported out of this State for trial, for any offence committed within this State.

 

[Master PO]

New Hampshire Constitution of 1784

PART I. - THE BILL OF RIGHTS

ARTICLE I

All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

II. All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights. among which are --the enjoying and defending life and liberty --acquiring, possessing and protecting property --and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.

III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to insure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.

IV. Among the natural rights, some are in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.

V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship GOD according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty or estate for worshipping GOD, in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession, sentiments or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or disturb others, in their religious worship.

VI. As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these, is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the DEITY, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes, the people of this state have a right to impower, and do hereby fully impower the legislature to authorize from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this state, to make adequate provision at their own expence, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality:

Provided notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, bodies-corporate, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their own public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. And no portion of any one particular religious sect or denomination, shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect or denomination.

And every denomination of christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good subjects of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another, shall ever be established by law.

And nothing herein shall be understood to affect any former contracts made for the support of the ministry; but all such contracts shall remain, and be in the same state as if this constitution had not been made.

VII. The people of this state, have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction and right pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.

VIII. All power residing originally in, and being derived from the people, all the magistrates and officers of government, are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them.

IX. No office or place whatsoever in government, shall be hereditary --the abilities and integrity requisite in all, not being transmissible to posterity or relations.

X. Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

XI. All elections ought to be free, and every inhabitant of the state having the proper qualifications, has equal right to elect, and be elected into office.

XII. Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expence of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent. But no part of a man's property shall be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they or their representative body have given their consent.

XIII. No person who is conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent.

XIV. Every subject of this state is entitled to a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries he may receive in his person, property or character, to obtain right and justice freely, without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay, conformably to the laws.

XV. No subject shall be held to answer for any crime, or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to himself; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, and counsel. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.

XVI. No subject shall be liable to be tried, after an acquittal, for the same crime or offence. --Nor shall the legislature make any law that shall subject any person to a capital punishment, excepting for the government of the army and navy, and the militia in actual service, without trial by jury.

XVII. In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed; except in cases of general insurrection in any particular county, when it shall appear to the Judges of the Superior Court, that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the offence may be committed, and upon their report, the assembly shall think proper to direct the trial in the nearest county in which an impartial trial can be obtained.

XVIII. All penalties ought to be proportioned to the nature of the offence. No wise legislature will affix the same punishment to the crimes of theft, forgery and the like, which they do to those of murder and treason; where the same undistinguishing severity is exerted against all offences; the people are led to forget the real distinction in the crimes themselves, and to commit the most flagrant with as little compunction as they do those of the lightest dye: For the same reason a multitude of sanguinary laws is both impolitic and unjust. The true design of all punishments being to reform, not to exterminate, mankind.

XIX. Every subject hath a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath, or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure; and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities prescribed by the laws.

XX. In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more persons, except in cases in which it has been heretofore otherwise used and practiced, the parties have a right to a trial by jury; and this method of procedure shall be held sacred, unless in causes arising on the high seas, and such as relate to mariners wages, the legislature shall think it necessary hereafter to alter it.

XXI. In order to reap the fullest advantage of the inestimable privilege of the trial by jury, great care ought to be taken that none but qualified persons should be appointed to serve; and such ought to be fully compensated for their travel, time and attendance.

XXII. The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.

XXIII. Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences.

XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defence of a state.

XXV. Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the legislature.

XXVI. In all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

XXVII. No soldier in time of peace, shall be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; and in time of war, such quarters ought not to be made but by the civil magistrate, in a manner ordained by the legislature.

XXVIII. No subsidy, charge, tax, impost or duty shall be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of the people or their representatives in the legislature, or authority derived from that body.

XXIX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of them, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived therefrom, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for.

XXX. The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any action, complaint, or prosecution, in any other court or place whatsoever.

XXXI. The legislature ought frequently to assemble for the redress of grievances, for correcting, strengthening and confirming the laws, and for making new ones, as the common good may require.

XXXII. The people have a right in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common good, give instructions to their representatives; and to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.

XXXIII. No magistrate or court of law shall demand excessive bail or sureties, impose excessive fines, or inflict cruel or unusual punishments.

XXXIV. No person can in any case be subjected to law martial, or to any pains, or penalties, by virtue of that law, except those employed in the army or navy, and except the militia in actual service, but by authority of the legislature.

XXXV. It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit. It is therefore not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, that the judges of the supreme (or superior) judicial court should hold their offices so long as they behave well; and that they should have honorable salaries, ascertained and established by standing laws.

XXXVI. Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, especially in a young one; no pension shall be granted, but in consideration of actual services, and such pensions ought to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never for more than one year at a time.

XXXVII. In the government of this state, the three essential powers thereof, to wit, the legislative, executive and judicial, ought to be kept as separate from and independent of each other, as the nature of a free government will admit, or as is consistent with that chain of connection that binds the whole fabric of the constitution in one indissoluble bond of union and amity.

XXXVIII. A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government; the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their officers and representatives: and they have a right to require of their law-givers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of government.

 

[Trip]

Ernst that is really objectionable.

THat is SEVEN posts of yours, all nothing but text dumps, none of which address my questions to you, and none of which even are remotely applicable to the discussion here.

I'm of half a mind to lodge a complaint against those posts, as well as your previous un-cited plagiarism.

 

[Master PO]

Ernst that is really objectionable.

THat is SEVEN posts of yours, all nothing but text dumps, none of which address my questions to you, and none of which even are remotely applicable to the discussion here.

I'm of half a mind to lodge a complaint against those posts, as well as your previous un-cited plagiarism.

YOU LODGE A COMPLAINT?

MY POST ARE TO SHOW YOU RIGHTS WERE RECOGNIZED BY STATES BEFORE THE BILL OF RIGHTS CAME TO PAST.

Madison was part of the Virgina legislature, were do you think be got the rights enumerated on the federal bill of rights

"That there be a declaration or bill of rights asserting, and securing from encroachment, the essential and unalienable rights of the people, in some such manner as the following:--

"1st. That there are certain natural rights, of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

"2d. That all power is naturally invested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates therefore are their trustees and agents, at all times amenable to them.

"3d. That government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.

"4th. That no man or set of men are entitled to separate or exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services, which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge, or any other public office, to be hereditary.

"5th. That the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government should be separate and distinct; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the public burdens, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into the mass of the people, and the vacancies be supplied by certain and regular elections, in which all or any part of the former members to be eligible or ineligible, as the rules of the Constitution of government, and the laws, shall direct.

"6th. That the elections of representatives in the legislature ought to be free and frequent, and all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, ought to have the right of suffrage; and no aid, charge, tax, or fee, can be set, rated, or levied, upon the people without their own consent, or that of their representatives, so elected; nor can they be bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.

"7th. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without the consent of the representatives of the people in the legislature, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

"8th. That, in all criminal and capital prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence, and be allowed counsel in his favor, and to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the government of the land and naval forces; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself.

"9th. That no freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, privileges, or franchises, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.

"10th. That every freeman restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy, to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same, if unlawful, and that such remedy ought not to be denied nor delayed.

"11th. That, in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is one of the greatest securities to the rights of the people, and to remain sacred and inviolable.

"12th. That every freeman ought to find a certain remedy, by recourse to the laws, for all injuries and wrongs he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, without sale, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay; and that all establishments or regulations contravening these rights are oppressive and unjust.

"13th. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

"14th. That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his papers, and property; all warrants, therefore, to search suspected places, or seize any freeman, his papers, or property, without information on oath (or affirmation of a person religiously scrupulous of taking an oath) of legal and sufficient cause, are grievous and oppressive; and all general warrants to search suspected places, or to apprehend any suspected person, without specially naming or describing the place or person, are dangerous, and ought not to be granted.

"15th. That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for the common good, or to instruct their representatives; and that every freeman has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.

"16th. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; that the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

"18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the law directs.

"19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

"20th. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others."

Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights

 

[jwzg]

Trip, that's not objectionable, and it's quite shallow to even threaten a complaint. Ask him to start citing his sources and be done with it. Ernst is using logic to prove a point, and he's been pretty calm so far in doing it.

My question comes down to this: if the intention was for the federal government to hold ultimate power over the states, then why would states need to include a BOR in their constitutions at all?

Ernst that is really objectionable.

THat is SEVEN posts of yours, all nothing but text dumps, none of which address my questions to you, and none of which even are remotely applicable to the discussion here.

I'm of half a mind to lodge a complaint against those posts, as well as your previous un-cited plagiarism.

 

[Trip]

YOU LODGE A COMPLAINT?

MY POST ARE TO SHOW YOU RIGHTS WERE RECOGNIZED BY STATES BEFORE THE BILL OF RIGHTS CAME TO PAST.

You need S-E-V-E-N posts of nothing but commonly known text dump to "show" what I've already stated, that the Rights were in existence, and recognized before this country came into being? REALLY?

Madison was part of the Virgina legislature, were do you think be got the rights enumerated on the federal bill of rights

<snip of more pointless text dump>

So WHAT! The issue here is whether or not States can fabricate rights, and deny them, or if rights are actually innate to the individual and UNALIENABLE, as per the Declaration of Independence. You got that, right?

 

[Trip]

Trip, that's not objectionable, and it's quite shallow to even threaten a complaint. Ask him to start citing his sources and be done with it. Ernst is using logic to prove a point, and he's been pretty calm so far in doing it.

My question comes down to this: if the intention was for the federal government to hold ultimate power over the states, then why would states need to include a BOR in their constitutions at all?

His point he's proving, (and nowhere stating on his own), was not anything relevant to the argument, as I indicate in my previous post, and indicated repeatedly before that.

It has been one enormous text dump after another, even text from uncredited sources, and repeated recognition that the "Bill of Rights" is only applicable to the federal government, which I have repeatedly stated that I recognize... all a pointless waste of my time to read.

The issue here is that that RIGHTS (not the "Bill of Rights") are every bit as applicable to the States as they are to the federal government, and the entire history of this country shows this to be true.

Nowhere in the founders writings, or the Federalist papers themselves, does any founder indicate that "rights" are only to be recognized by the federal government, and not the states.

Nowhere do this nation's founders indicate it is infinitely preferable for our rights to be denied by the states, rather than the federal government, which is fundamentally, and grossly, an irrational idea, and one which totally squelches the noble ideas put forth in the Declaration of Independence.

And in regard to your question, if the recognition of our having rights that are UNALIENABLE, and which are nowhere provided by that Bill of Rights in the Constitution, somehow can be perceived even slightly ("shallowly") as the federal government "holding ultimate power over the states", then we have a serious problem as a nation, and we may as well kiss freedom goodbye and just walk away from this nation hell-bent on destroying itself from its own ignorance. I'm pretty much to that point myself.

HOW exactly is it at all POSSIBLE for those rights to be the "federal government holding ultimate power over the states", when the states very own sovereignty is derived from the cumulative sovereignty of the rights and freedoms of each citizen residing therein?

Apparently you too have been too well trained, but not alone, to believe that "civil rights", and therefore real rights themselves, are the propriety of the federal government, which is entitled to police and enforce them, as well as fabricate them, when this too is a gross corruption of the Constitution, and those very Rights themselves, and in no way legitimate.