top of page

301. The States, The People, and Our Rights


Many States in the union are constitutionally instituted for the protection, security, benefit, and other natural rights of the people.  Even in ancient times, kings used the notion that a people work together to justly reduce their hardship, but mostly to exploit social control within their territory.  US CONST Art IV Sec 4 guarantees the republican form of government.  The republican form of government is characterized by the elected representation of government by consent, the rule of law, and prohibitions on authoritarian forms of government.  However, if a supermajority attempts to seek the kind of class-action relief for an injury that meets those very high criteria in court, we will be told that we can't 'because the law in question is interchangeable with the consent of the governed no matter what it says.'  The case law is that it is not a "judicial prerogative" to remedy any very direct, communist-fascist legal injuries (Luther v. Borden, 1849).  The problems with interpreting everything that our elected representatives pass into law as the very consent of the governed itself stand on their face.  Our federal bureaucracy acts beyond its constitutional powers frequently, and the powers of the courts only ever extend as far as the law says as well, but they do not have the power to turn off or alter their role of adjudication like a switch.  The precedent for "political questions" enables lawmakers to pass whatever special-interest policy universally against our consent that they want, which is common, and then for government to tell us we consented to it.  What kind of evil is that?  Therefore, we need to distribute entitlements to seek supermajority relief limited to the fundamental consent of the governed so government can no longer blindly obey "Nuremberg orders."  We must clarify that the purpose of government is to remove significant hardships for citizens, not create them.  We pay taxes for a return on them, not for them to be used against us.  Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment is far more important than any of our primary school teachers made clear to us in refresher courses.  If you read the amendment you will see it vests great power in the States and the people.  Not only do the same words serve as substantive States rights and reserve powers, it describes the procedural relationship between the parties of the union.  The union is made up of three sovereign parties: the several States, the United States, and the people.  Unfortunately, the term "the people" has become indistinct from government in the minds of many, which is so wrong because government is supposed to be instituted by the consent of the people: they are somewhat codependent but are not interdependently one in the same.  Courts have interpreted every law passed as the consent of the governed no matter what, which is crazy, and State prosecutions are made directly in our name even though the content [and lack thereof] may not always reflect it.  Legally, the sovereign, constitutional party known as "the people" has been taken hostage by the other two parties and is often used against us like a puppet.  Therefore, we must take back our sovereignty and clarify the rules of reserved power.  The doctrine of substantive nullification is simple: law and government actions must be derived from constitutional power, and if a policy is not, it is not law.  On the other hand, if only express constitutional language delegated all constitutional powers and everything else was reserved to the people, that could effectively nullify everything so there are no laws!


Even though the Second Amendment is pretty straightforward, letting professionals manufacture ambiguities that are not actually there has created a need for clarification.  Some people believe the notion that the courts have interpreted the amendment in whole to effectively mean "State National Guards," which is so crazy.  A more reasonable hypothesis that is still not accurate based on the language is that the amendment says that only citizens "in a well-regulated militia" may be armed.   The language indicates that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, but nothing makes the right of the people to bear arms codependent with this distinct reserve power of the States.  Our Second Amendment rights are remarked on as distinct in the Federalist papers because they are necessary for the security of any free state.  Instead of discussing the law, a new, hyperpartisan train of thought asserts that Madison and Hamilton never wrote about the purpose we understand the amendment for, but they instead say it was written to "protect slavery."  The clear language in most State constitutions show that American forefathers gave us these rights for a clear, important reason, so to oppose an amendment is categorically untrue.  The problems made out of the Second Amendment are largely a result of the same case law doctrines addressed on this site.  For example, "originalist" constructionism is the doctrine which everyone who says "the founders didn't intend to protect bullets or modern guns" are drawing from.  Generally, there are three doctrines by which judges interpret laws: originalism, strict construction, and postmodernism.  Originalism is characterized by records related to the actual writing and passing of a given law.  Strict construction is characterized by the law as it is written, which apparently has to be a huge problem for professionals.  Postmodernism or "interpretivism" is characterized by a means of interpretation where everything is subjective and ambiguous, which is absurd on its face, and has somehow been conflated with strict constriction in the minds of many in a way that demonizes it.  Records such as those related to the first constitutional conventions often do not suffice to cover the scope of the law as it is written, and they cannot possibly consider all of the individual circumstances the writers intended to fall under a given law's definition.  How possibly could they?  When professionals and powerful interests tell common people that an impossibility is true, critical thinkers must raise questions.  In this case, we are being told that originalist legal records do suffice for the totality of circumstances under law, so logically, this "unquestionable" paradox is being exploited to do something other than what is being said.  Substantive rights and procedural rights seem to be the most significant arena of this hyperpartisan politicking in our courts.  Both sides have each of their own "favorites" which the other denies, and both cryptically deny their own wrongdoings.  I'm unaware of any arguments that dispute the procedural rights/powers inherent in all law, but good examples of left-wing substantive rights arise from Amd I and XIV and good right-wing examples arise from Amd II and X.  Basically, if originalism were fundamentally overshadowed by strict construction in a way that prohibited postmodernism, there would be no reasonable doubts related to the Second Amendment whatsoever, and we would have the rule of law at large.  There is a clear difference between applying the law as it is written and using it as a tool to either replace it with judicial case laws or throw it out without any grounds to other than to say words like "ambiguous" do not have agreed-upon definitions.  On the other hand, the amendment does not entitle anyone to boundless rights in all circumstances because that would breach the intent expressed in the right in the first place.  Nobody thinks anyone freely accessing tanks, bazookas, etc. at any time under any condition would produce freedom or security.


According to the Ninth Amendment, no right can be used to deny or disparage another, nor can national powers be used to deny or disparage those of the States.  Technically, the language only covers "rights" of "the people," but so much originalist doctrine related to the form of government makes this broadened scope acceptable.  However, questions of a similarly inductive nature may arise with unlawful judicial powers to alter the scope of the word "rights" to be interdependent with government "powers" and "people" to be one in the same as "States."  According to the rules of strict constriction according to due process, it is unlawful for a judge to interpret different words within the same function in the place of each other.  "Money" is an interesting question in cases of speech because its publication in itself may be costly, but this does not give courts the power to conflate the two definitions in a way that creates an immunity for bribery.  Arguably, these free speech protections extend up to property qualifications, where they start denying and disparaging other rights.  Other rights and powers do not necessarily work the same, so any legal foundation to broaden the scope of the Ninth Amendment to prohibit the federal government from exercising its own versions of State reserved power in bad faith has to come purely from originalist doctrine.  Right now, the Ninth Amendment is only in force selectively: it has reverse-engineered its own proof of how effectively it is supposed to prohibit government by faction, where legal think-tanks and even some judges in the tangled mess of case law have gone as far as ruling that the amendment is "unenforceable!"  One who becomes familiar with key-topic legal activism on both sides will quickly learn the amendment's mechanics: the rights/powers that one side favors and the ways in which a side tends to deny/disparage those of the other side.  Instead of being in force, the rule of construction in the Ninth Amendment and its history has been manipulated by professionals today to argue against the existence of the Bill of Rights altogether.  Originalist doctrine famously draws on James Madison's speech to propose the Bill of Rights when discussing the amendment, but postmodernists spin around his admission to opposing arguments at the time using the procedural rights in order to deny the substantive rights!  In order to address this directly, Madison framed the Ninth Amendment to protect against implied powers of the federal government to assign itself exclusive jurisdiction based on the singling out of certain rights.  However, by denying the substantive rights, there are no prohibitions on government from intruding into freedom of thought, association, expression, educational freedom of choice, and the vast body of adverse rights we rely on in everyday American life.  Experts have somehow spun around Amd. IX prohibitions to preserve key-topic government hardships that intrinsically deny and disparage our rights with a doctrine of derelict inaction, much like the political question doctrine and others.  Instead of preserving and applying the fundamental purposes our constitution is instituted for, professionals use cryptic propaganda in generational perpetuation to replace the criteria of justiciability with unlawful power to subvert it.  The examples of hyperpartisan distortions of rights to life, liberty, property, privacy, firearms, speech, and others are endless.  It is easy to see why party professionals tell us that key laws like this do things other than what they say they should do.  If the Ninth Amendment were in force, partisan legal experts certainly could not oversimplify the dynamics of interpretation to make fundamental constitutional laws do the opposite of what they say, do nothing for the cases that actually fall under them, or otherwise alter their scope without a great basis to.

bottom of page