Our Constitutional Rights
I watched as they oppressed
the right to bear arms.
But I did nothing,
because I did not own a gun.
I watched as they oppressed
the right to privacy.
But I did nothing,
because I did not see them oppressing mine.
I watched as they oppressed
the right to effective counsel.
But I did nothing,
because I could afford to buy mine.
I watched as they oppressed
the right to petition.
But I did nothing,
because I had no grievance then.
I watched as they oppressed
the people’s pursuit of Happiness.
But I did nothing,
because I was in the majority, they were not oppressing mine.
I realized they were oppressing
my constitutionally protected rights and I protested!
But I could do nothing,
because while they were oppressing my Unalienable Rights, I DID NOTHING!
The Constitution does not give us our unalienable rights, it protects them from oppression!
By: Theodore Wagner
Constitutional Patriot
November 2008
The reason the government is making all these laws so they can tap our phones without a warrant and many other oppressions id because the people refuse to stand up for the Right Of Redress. The people in government from President Obama all the way to every judge in the states took an oath to defend the US Constitution.
[3][4] We start with the premise that the rights to assemble peaceably and to petition for a redress of grievances are among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights. These rights, moreover, are intimately connects, both in origin and in purpose, with the other First Amendment rights of free speech and free press. “All these, though not identical, are inseparable.”
Thomas v Collins, 323 US 515,530, 89 L ed 430, 440,65 S Ct 315 (1945). See De Jonge v Oregon, 299 US 353, 364, 81 L ed 278, 283, 57 S Ct 255 (1937). The first Amendment would, however, be a hollow promise if it left government free to destroy or erode it’s guarantees by indirect restraints so long as no law is passed that prohibits free speech, press, petition, or assembly as such. We have therefore repeatedly held that laws which actually affect the exercise of these vital rights cannot be sustained merely because they were enacted for the purpose of dealing with some evil within the State’s legislative competence, or even because the laws do in fact provide a helpful means of dealing with such and evil. Schneider v State, 308 US 147, 84 L ed 155, 60 S Ct 146 (1939); Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 US 296, 84 L ed 1213, 60 S Ct 900, 128 ALR 1352 (1940)
[6][7][8] We think that both the Button and Trainmen cases are controlling here. The litigation in question is, of course, not bound up with political matters of acute social moment, as in Button but the First Amendment does not protect speech and assembly only to the extent it can be characterized as political. “Great secular causes, with small ones, are guarded. The grievances for redress of which the right of petition was insured, and with it the right of assembly, are not solely religious or political ones.
And the rights of free speech and a free press are not confined to any field of human interest. “ Thomas v Collins, supra, at 531 89 L ed at 441. And of course in Trainmen, where the litigation in question was, as here, solely designed to compensate the victims of industrial accidents, we rejected the contention made in dissent, see 377 US, at 10,12 L ed 2d at 95, 11 ALR3d 1196 (Clark, J.), that the principles announced in Button were applicable only to litigation for political purposes. See 377 US, 8, 12 L ed 2d at 94, 11 ALR3d 1196. UNITED MINE WORDERS OF AMERICA, District 12, Petitioner vs. ILLINOIS STATE BAR ASSOCIATION et al., 389 US 217, 19 L Ed 2d 426, 88 S Ct 353, (1967)
We can restore the Right of Redress. We only have to demand the court give redress to one of the challenges I have put before the courts. One day it will happen. No Doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment