The Bill of Rights is Not Negotiable

Since government never granted the rights in The Bill of Rights in the first place (given from our Creator) it has no authority to take them away.

There is a destructive, delusional meme spreading like a virus among many misguided Americans. It pushes the idea that government can pick and choose which rights codified in the Bill of Rights it wishes to recognize or discard on any given day. This delusion is predicated on the concept that if a popular majority can be emotionally whipped into a frenzy over one particular right, then that right can simply be discarded and stricken from the Bill of Rights. But no such power exists to discard any portion of the Bill of Rights, at least not without proper ratification by three-fourths of the fifty states.

There is no such power found solely in the federal government. There is no such power placed solely in the executive branch, nor in Congress, nor in the White House. The Bill of Rights describes a set of individual rights and liberties that are not granted by government, but recognized as DIVINE rights given to use by our Creator. Because government never granted the rights in the first place, it has no authority to take them away. "The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting." - William J Brennan Jr.

The individual liberties described in the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed, nor deleted, nor overridden by popular opinion... not even loudly screamed opinion. America is not a nation ruled by the tyranny of the mob. It isn't even a democracy -- it's a republic, where certain inalienable rights describe the protection of each individual, even if that individual is the lone voice of sanity in a majority gone mad. 

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

paul gonzales January 08, 2013 at 10:26 PM
jamies right on target could not be any clearer- just read what he has written.for i like to play devils advocate but i have to agree with him on matters of this nature ROCK ON
Mary Davis January 08, 2013 at 11:56 PM
Ken: It only makes sense. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is so that politicians will fear the armed citizenry and have second thoughts about trying to implement tyrannical control over the people. When the people are armed, the politicians know that can't do it. The paradox of liberty relates to its defense and preservation. If force can take away liberty, force is necessary to preserve it. It is the hatred of violence alongside the willingness to use violence that preserves liberty. In order for us to live as free men and women, we have to hate the violence that takes away liberty, yet at the same time, we must embrace the violence that preserves it. That is the paradox our founders appreciated and made work for over 200 years.
Steven DeVaux January 09, 2013 at 01:59 AM
You know something? They passed an amendment to ban alcohol. To allow alcohol they had to pass another amendment so here's the challenge Amerika...pass an amendment overturning the second amendment. Go ahead. Let's see if Americans don't want the right to keep and bear arms. We have a process. Follow it.
Mary Davis January 09, 2013 at 01:08 PM
Steven: Without the 2nd amendment, you might as well not have any of the rights as described in the Bill of Rights as they would be unenforceable. I imagine you must like the idea of living in a socialist dictatorship with no freedoms whatsoever... you must dream of a cold war era Soviet style government for your children and your children's children because that's exactly what you'll get without the 2nd amendment. There is no other explanation as to why you'd want to repeal the 2nd amendment. Its not about protecting children, you'd like to enslave them to the government. So please just say it in your own words.. it will make arguing with you a whole lot more open and honest.
Sam January 09, 2013 at 01:16 PM
Mary, Instead of arguing, how about a great big virtual group hug! Now then, doesn't that feel better?
Amy Lynn January 09, 2013 at 05:07 PM
Wondering Snarky comments dont really add to the conversation. Hopefully someday you might make a serious adult comment and contribute something to the conversation.
Steven DeVaux January 09, 2013 at 05:36 PM
Mary, I think a very large majority of Americans would agree with you on that. That's the reason to add an amendment the bar is extremely high. Extremely. But we have a process under the constitution. Let the liberals come out and be identified with repealing the second amendment. We can't even get a balanced budget amendment and that's less controversial!
Michael Gianfranceschi January 09, 2013 at 07:04 PM
Mary, I think you are misreading what steve is saying, he does not want to repeal the 2nd ammendment, he is saying that to repeal three fourths of the states would be necessary to repeal and if the liberals really are serious about it then this is the avenue that must be taken. and like he says above it would stand a snowballs chance in hell of passing.
Mary Davis January 09, 2013 at 11:37 PM
Sam... If the liberals in power would simply legislate from within the boundaries of the The Constitution...then I wouldn't be so upset and could participate in your group hug. Why do liberals hold The Constitution in such contempt? The Bill of Rights lifted human civilization out of the tar pits of tyranny and into the enlightenment of liberty. It was divinely inspired and stands eternal as the key milestone of human compassion, justice and equality. To oppose the Bill of Rights is to oppose human progress. That's why the Bill of Rights is the single most important document that has ever been recognized by any nation. The rights described in the Bill of Rights extend through all time and cover all innovations and technological advances.
Sam January 09, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Hi Mary, how are you? First off, you really should direct your question(s) to the Liberals, Washington DC is a good place to start. Second, it really pains me to see such an angry attitude in a discussion forum, just saying. Have a great day!
Mary Davis January 10, 2013 at 12:04 AM
Sam, pretty well thanks. Liberals aren't interested in debate or discussion. They don't care about the rules and the ends justifying the means. We had a great country until liberals and progressives set us on the path to more socialism potentially tyranny. With Obama, it's never been worse. Its hard to be upbeat when I can see it all crumbling around me... some of you act like nero.. as we burn.
Sam January 10, 2013 at 12:29 AM
This country has been crumbling for many years, it's nothing new. I had the honor of defending The Constitution of this great nation and have visited many foreign lands, the United States is by far better on our worse days! It may crumble to the ground as it has in the the past, but it can and will be rebuilt, hopefully better than ever before. I don't think I'm like Nero (at least I hope not), I think I am a little more like Karl Marx!
Steven DeVaux January 10, 2013 at 12:53 AM
Mary, I suprised you don't support the constitutionals process to change or amend it. I don't think you mean that do you? I simply said lets follow the rules we all agreed to follow in the constitution. I don't think for one minute that the second amendment is going to be repealed but it will remove all doubt if they try and fail.
Mary Davis January 10, 2013 at 02:29 AM
Sam... it is true that USA is better than any other place in the world... but after Obama is done leveling the playing field and punishing the evil capitalists we won't be. Rebuilding after the collapse... now there is a topic for my new blog thread...
Richard Cass January 10, 2013 at 09:14 PM
Mary's understanding of the Second Amendment is elementary at best. She should read up on it more, this time excluding Glenn Beck picture books and the like. I think she'll find that prior to the 1970s, when the NRA transformed itself into another mouthpiece for the new conservatism that Nixon's Southern Strategy helped create, it was conventional wisdom that individual citizens had no right to arm themselves to the teeth to keep the government in check. The Second Amendment does protect the right of militias, but not ordinary citizens.
Mary Davis January 10, 2013 at 09:44 PM
Richard C: What difference does conventional wisdom from 1970 make? If your statement is true, they simply had it wrong. Conventional wisdom used to say the world was flat, if man were meant to fly he'd have been born with wings, rockets would never work in outer space, slavery was OK, women had no rights to vote, trickle down economics doesn't work.. etc. I suggest YOU need to read more about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The "Militia" as referred to in the Constitution is without question referring to the "whole body of people". You go research it somewhere other than via some liberal fact distortion site, then you can learn the truth.
Richard Cass January 10, 2013 at 10:41 PM
You are correct- the militia is the whole body of people, who train regularly and keep their weapons in the armory. I'm not aware of any private citizens in 1788 who kept cannons in their backyard. Based on your extensive research, I'm sure you know that the government transitioned from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution due to the need for a strong central government. I'm sure you also know that this need was exemplified by Shay's Rebellion, during which rebels attempted to seize the Springfield armory (where the guns were locked up). Can you really tell me that after that scare, the founders were really keen on letting ordinary citizens keep military weapons in their homes? Of course, most private citizens had guns in 1793 for hunting- this was out of necessity, and is not protected under the 2nd Amendment. Thanks for the tip. I'll get reading.
Mary Davis January 10, 2013 at 11:30 PM
@Richard, Yes, I know an armory is where guns are locked up. Yes Shay's illustrated the need for a stronger central government.. (however, not with unlimited power, stronger than it was then, only). Yes... I can say the founders weren't that scared of citizens with guns as you propose... Thomas Jefferson said of the rebellion, "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" as well as “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Jefferson had a major influence in the writing of the Constitution btw... You are right, guns for the purpose of hunting is not protected in the Bill of Rights, however, guns for the purpose of preventing the possibility of tyranny is. That means the AR platform without restrictions on magazine size. I'm also not aware of anyone with a cannon back then. So what? I imagine they were just as expensive as owning a tank would be today. Yes, I trained regularly, thank you. but do you think guns in an armory would prevent tyranny? Would guns in armory enable one to defend yourself against anyone else? No, the founders knew the citizens needed them in their homes.. for the necessity of hunting sure.,. but for more than that too.
Richard Cass January 11, 2013 at 12:19 AM
Ok, but even an AR-15 would be next to useless against the technology of the army. Just like a fowling piece was next to useless in 18th Century combat.
Rob Gianazza January 11, 2013 at 12:34 AM
Imperial thinking Richard. "Forgive me for asking, but what good are snub-fighters against that? [Death Star]" Dennis Lawson portraying Wedge Antilles in A New Hope, 1977
Richard Cass January 11, 2013 at 01:01 AM
Good point Rob, but in all seriousness, if the rebellion that Mary speaks of ever happens, the resulting conflict will not be played by 18th Century rules with 18 Century weapons. If Mary and others believe that the weapons they keep in their homes are truly necessary to repel tyranny, how do they propose to remedy the unfair advantage that the government has?
Mary Davis January 11, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Richard et al.. here are a few videos that make an interesting point...could this happen this year, ten years, 100 years? It is much more likely when the citizens are disarmed that's for sure. The first two are short.. an excellent production from MTV.. the last one is long but well worth seeing what kind of tactics the government uses.. is why we need to be strong enough to make them think twice about declaring Marshall law and imposing a tyrannical ruler. http://youtu.be/tYI1PY-b-ro http://youtu.be/lO6yQvODZjI http://youtu.be/Z8mkqI_dVJg
Richard Cass January 11, 2013 at 09:04 PM
Oh dear.... It must be terrible being so afraid.
Mary Davis January 11, 2013 at 10:51 PM
Richard Cass... I suppose that means you're also a Holocaust denier... it is the only reason I can think of as to why you'd write, "It must be terrible being so afraid" in reference to a modern day Holocaust warning video. Disgusting! I suppose if you believe it never happened in Germany some 75 years ago.. then of course why be vigilant of the government today? I can see how a denier might think the government can be trusted completely. I am personally against the National Socialist movement and what they did then and what they stand for now.
Richard Cass January 11, 2013 at 10:57 PM
It is absolutely disgusting that you have the capacity to call me a holocaust denier based on what I wrote. I have read many of your comments on here. The problem with allowing private citizens to own guns, is that you and people like you are private citizens. This conversation is over.
Mary Davis January 11, 2013 at 11:04 PM
If you re-read the text.. "I suppose".. is not accusing you. Please explain what you mean when wrote in reference to the modern day Holocaust warning video, "Oh dear....It must be terrible being so afraid.?" If you are not denier.. that's great, but then explain why you think a mere 75 years later we have absolutely no need to keep vigilant against it happening again?
Richard Cass January 11, 2013 at 11:14 PM
I was expressing empathy for your state of mind if those videos are shaping who you are. Case in point- you are so scared and angry that you can justify calling a perfect stranger a holocaust denier.
Mary Davis January 12, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Richard C.. I may well then owe you an apology. There is so much sarcasm in these threads.. that's how I read your post. I was careful, however, to use the "suppose" , which you might also insert the word surmise deduce.... I did, however suppose it.. so it is accurate. The videos don't shape who I am... I posted them for everyone else's benefit.. especially the ones that don't think I ought to have the right to be vigilant and retain a deterrent to government gone bad. The only way I and other gun owners can be a deterrent to tyranny is if I (we) are not restricted by the same government we are a deterrent to. I love this Jefferson quote: "Democracy is like two wolves and one small lamb voting over what will be for lunch. Liberty is having a well armed lamb disputing that vote." (paraphrased) I am that lamb.
Louis Carollo January 12, 2013 at 09:31 PM
I'm usually a very strong person, but when I went to The Edmonton Town Hall and saw ALL those mementos, I had enough tears that I could not stay there very long. Yes, my wife and I did go and see ALL the other sights for those poor children, that left this world so suddenly and so innocently. I do want to say I'm a gun owner and there are a lot of facts out there that are so untrue. My BIGGEST thing instead of getting rid of certain firearms, why not STOP these gangs that are ALL around us. They are the higher percent of kids that die needlessly because they steal or get firearms illegally. The biggest number of firearm deaths are the kids that have no mercy for anyone cause they have an illegal firearm. I'm sure you saw in the papers that two 14 year old KIDS asked for a cigarette or light from a woman and she said "Get a job". So they shot and killed her. Add these stories up and you can see just who are the violator of the LAW and WHY so many KIDS are dying!! Why can't the police stop them?? They have to forcefully take them out one way or another. To the Newtown, CT parents who lost love ones, your in my heart and prayers forever. I, as a gun owner have a heart and soul that makes me cry every time I think of what has just occurred. I'm so SORRY for what you have to endure.
Steven DeVaux January 13, 2013 at 12:48 PM
In thinking about the cry for gun control - a thought. How is it that so many police are shot - many killed - every year with illegal guns yet there is no outcry or task force to solve the illegal killing of police with illegal weapons? I mean think about that. We have laws on the books already, we have armed enforcement of those laws - and yet, police are still being killed at an incredible rate compared to the rest of the world by ... check the statistic ... a preponderence of young males between the ages of 13 and 25. How will new laws protect unarmed non-law enforcement folks "better"?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »