Concerns On Amendment Violations

Not content to merely point out Governmental Abuse of the US Constitution, I've also compiled some of their violations of the Amendments. As before, you should research & read them for yourself; Below, I only include those violations of which I'm aware of or have clear, recent memory of without the benefits of additional research to include more. Also, as before, violations that others discover are open to discussion & I'm always open for suggestions for these posts that are written to support implementation of The American Petition.

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Violations: I'm not sure, without further research, if the Government's been oppressing religions the same way they've been oppressing the citizens...Discussion is open. Freedom of Speech/Press is a joke in their hands...Otherwise, why is USA #17 on the list of countries that practice free speech/press at all? The USA should be #1 & *remain* so. How many Peaceful Assemblies does the government break up...Granted, I haven't heard of any occasions where they've used bullets to do so (yet); However, by Amendment 1, the government should have no legal right to break up any *peaceful* assembly at all. Petitioning grievances is *almost* a joke...Use of "sound-bite" speech & suppression of media & free speech has pretty much allowed the Government to *ignore* legal grievances. It will take a massive effort on the part of *millions* of citizens gathered together to stop the Governmental corruption & repression of the Constitution & the Nation; This is why they've suppressed the free flow of information to the public...It's something they don't want to happen.

Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Comment: Keeping in the spirit of the Constitution, I see no good reason for known criminals (Ie: Have a previous record of crimes against citizens) to have a Right to own guns; However, arms such as rifles & shotguns should bear no other restrictions. In all respects, it should be State Legislation that imposes any controls on firearms...This is not an issue that the Federal Government should stick it's nose into.

Amendment 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Comment: If such laws ever violate other Constitutional clauses or any other Amendments, then those laws should *not* be enacted in the first place. For example, should a Commander-in-Chief ever declare Martial Law against the tenants of the Constitution, then he will have violated the same Constitution that he has vowed to uphold & should be removed from his position & the declaration of Martial Law should be voided.

Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Violations: The Home Security Act is, in itself, a violation as much as anyone who obeys that Act. Even before the enactment of that document, the Federal Government has routinely & repeatedly violated this Amendment.

Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Violations: There are too many laws enacted, against the Constitution itself, that further violate this Amendment for me to list here. I suggest you research further.

Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Violations: What of the people who have been detained & imprisoned & illegally tried against their will under the guise of The Home Security Act? The Act is Unconstitutional from its very inception; Therefore, the Federal Government has been acting in an Unconstitutional & Illegal manner. Too many examples exist to list here.

Amendment 7: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Comment: If it weren't for Amendment 5, this Amendment would render the use of military "non-judicial punishment" (NJP) practices to be illegal. In the case of non-military personnel under trial by law, this is the Amendment that is supposed to prevent "Double Jeopardy". Military Law should also be reviewed for discrepancies against the Constitution. Those who create & enforce the law are not placed above the law & only a consistent review of the laws to update current situations will prevent this type of abuse.

Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Comment: This means that the "secret tests" performed on people who have *not* volunteered for it must be stopped & the people responsible for performing such tests should be arrested for trial. Again, this also goes hand-in-hand with the constant repression of information & campaigns of disinformation that our Nation suffers under the current form of Government; The current form of Government is decidedly *not* Republic in nature, as demanded by the Constitution.

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Violation: How many Rights, as granted by the Constitution & the accompanying Bill of Rights, have been denied to this Nation's Citizen Body? Too many to list here.

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Violations: Again, too many to list here. How much more are The People going to lose before stopping the rampant corruption of the Federal Government? The power to right these wrongs is in the hands of the Citizen Body...But it must act *before* the corrupted Government has a chance to repeal *this* Right as well.

Amendment 14: This is a long one, but it does not address my question as listed for Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution.

However, I *do* have some concerns on how the Federal Government have been "upholding" Section 4 of this Amendment:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Comments: What of the *staggering* amount of National Debt that is *not* addressed by this Section? What of the evidence in existence that indicates the Federal Government as *instigating* those Unconstitutional actions which we are paying for? How should these costs be addressed? How reliable is the Federal Government in reporting & publishing (as required by the Constitution) these financial concerns?

Amendment 17 (Modifies Article 1, Section 3): The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
Violation: This is the Unconstitutional continuance of the initial "Emergency Act" that began the Government's response to the Great Depression in the early 1900's.

Amendment 20: Although this Amendment modifies Article I, section 4 of the Constitution, these modifications do not invalidate my earlier concerns.
Section 3: If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Violation: GWB did *not* submit to the required Background Check prior to taking Office, therefore, he should never have been allowed to occupy that Office until he qualified. It was only through extensive investigation that his background was established & had no cooperation from GWB in the process; Yet that information, in turn, indicated that he lacked the level of integrity required by the Office. He was unqualified for Office by refusing to comply & assumed possession...Illegally & Unconstitutionally.

Amendment 27: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.
Comment: While not technically *violated*, this Amendment has been mightily *abused* several times.


[Edited on 9-11-2002 by MidnightDStroyer]

But regaurding amendment # 3 it doesn't say anywhere that Martial Law can not be declared.

Sincerely,
no signature

M-D, you have very good intentions, no doubt, but if you really understood how deep the violations were, you just might be scared out of your mind.

Let me quickly make a couple of quick observations of some things you've noticed:

Comparing our "democracy" to other democracies is a precarious walk because 1) the standards that particular poolster used was not the best, and his terms were ill-defined, and 2) America was never meant to be a "democracy" to begin with. Oh, to be sure, we are that now, just as Sparta was. And, just as they, we are under military rule.

Your "freedom of religion" is nothing as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. It is totally upside-down now, and this, in my opinion, was intentionally done in order to cause the society to crumble and to see the government as their new savior. When the woman yelled at Clinton that he was responsible for those soldeirs dying in Somalia, and she and her husband found themselves in jail afterward, that was prrof that the freedom of speech as it was intended was gone. Oh, but you can burn the flag if you want to.

As far as the press is concerned, the ones who are guiding the country over the cliff, the ones who own the government, who owns the banking system, owns the media. Freedom isn't the issue, now. Control of the propaganda machine is.

You don't feel that I should own my weaponry because it also gives a bad guy the ability to do the same? You see, no matter what you do to me, the bad guy will always be the bad guy. Those who give up liberty for security will have neither - and deserve neither. No law infringing on my right to bear arms shall be passed. That is a right, and the states have no business regulating a right that the constitution recognizes as a right given us by the Creator. They have no more right to do that than the feds do.

No need to continue, as the posting will become to long and we'll eventually get into the ones that were not properly ratified anyway, and that means they shouldn't count for beans to begin with.

Look around you, man. Think about a few things. What all do you see that seems to go against the framers' intention?

Do you have the right to travel? Well sure you do. But why do they say driving is a privelege, and why do they make you get a liscense? Remember that the government is always right and the Patriot is usually wrong. The patriot isn't wrong because he's not moving in the right direction, but because words mean things. Example, do you operate a motor-vehicle when you go to the store? You do? Well gee, then you aren't travelling under the constitution, but are conducting a commercial activity. In that case, you must have a license and obey all the Uniformed Commercial Codes that aren't supposed to be held against the sovereign man on the land. After you bought that car of yours, did you trot down to the local courthouse and get one of those pretty rear-bumber decorations? Well, if you bolted that tag to your automobile, you turned it into a motor-vehicle and also donated it to the state. Don't believe me? Who's mark of ownership is on it? Now you must obey the man with the badge and the gun and the flag with the gold fringe on his uniform, or else he'll give you a citation, and you'll go to court. In that courtroom you'll see a flag that has a gold fringe on it and is being displayed on a staff with an eagle or a ball on it, right? Well, guess what? The flag, any flag, sets jurisdiction. The flag described sets a maritime, or martial law jurisdiction. The court appears to be a peacetime courtroom, but it's backed by the military. When you walk past the bar, your rights were stopped at that bar.

What the Hell is this nutbag talking about? I'm talking about the fact that the country was founded beautifully, but we are not there now. You want to change things? Figure how to set things back the way the were meant to be. You won't be able to, though, as most people couldn't care any less. Give them Cable TV or give them death!!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne M-D, you have very good intentions, no doubt, but if you really understood how deep the violations were, you just might be scared out of your mind.

These are probably the areas that I haven't done sufficient research in yet & even stated as such in these posts...Perhaps *because* I'm afraid of losing my mind over it.

Still, I've heard it said that, "A true hero is not any braver than anyone else; He just stays brave for a little *longer*" & "True courage is not the *absence* of fear; It's the ability to not let the fear overwhelm you to the point of inaction." Wise words if I ever heard them.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne America was never meant to be a "democracy" to begin with.

True...Even the Constitution itself specifies a Republic form of government.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne Your "freedom of religion" is nothing as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. It is totally upside-down now, and this, in my opinion, was intentionally done in order to cause the society to crumble and to see the government as their new savior.

Well said...I thought it strange that our Founding Fathers based the formation of the US on Christian priciples, yet would still desire a *total* seperation of Church & State; Some *level* of seperation seems logical, but a total seperation doesn't.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne Freedom isn't the issue, now. Control of the propaganda machine is.

This is the main problem I face when trying to figure out how to gain *wide-spread* public awareness & back it with the public's *will to act*. I'm not as charismatic as Hitler was (Even though I'm better-looking...marginally, anyway ) & I don't have the contacts or resources neccesary to be able to get this ball rolling on my own. The apparent lack of interest shown in the American Petition has got me concerned & a bit dejected...I was hoping that a group-input effort would succeed better than this.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne You don't feel that I should own my weaponry because it also gives a bad guy the ability to do the same?

It was not my intention to be interpreted in that manner. My opinion is that *handguns* should be the most strictly regulated (But not for those who's profession *requires* them, such as police), but the *Federal* Government should leave the specific regulation of rifles & shotguns to the individual States. States should *not* be allowed to require licensing fees or such, because that would be too much limitation on a Constitutional Right. Also, anyone who has a *record of criminal acts* should be excluded from this Right. This is merely my personal opinion for a regulating guideline to keep *handguns* from being so easily aquired & *used for crime*...Not an attempt to make a mandate for it.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne Those who give up liberty for security will have neither - and deserve neither. No law infringing on my right to bear arms shall be passed. That is a right, and the states have no business regulating a right that the constitution recognizes as a right given us by the Creator. They have no more right to do that than the feds do.

As I've already indicated, the States' regulations would only be for the purpose of trying to keep guns away from *proven criminals*. That is, if a person with a criminal record is caught with a gun of any kind in his possession, that alone would be enough of a charge to to bring him to trial...Even if no crime has been commited with that gun or by that person since his previous offense(s), prior to the arrest. The regular (No criminal record) citizen would still retain the Right to Arms. Perhaps I should change the text to make that more clear.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne No need to continue, as the posting will become to long and we'll eventually get into the ones that were not properly ratified anyway, and that means they shouldn't count for beans to begin with.

Like the Amendment that made the "Emergency Income Tax" created for the Depression into a permanent law? Remember, that particular Amendment was legislated "ex post facto", which is clearly defined as unacceptable by the Constitution.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne Do you have the right to travel?...

You forgot to mention the possibility of a citizen driving around & doing nothing commercial or official during the trip...Such as sight-seeing or going to a friend's house to visit...

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne I'm talking about the fact that the country was founded beautifully, but we are not there now. You want to change things? Figure how to set things back the way the were meant to be. You won't be able to, though, as most people couldn't care any less. Give them Cable TV or give them death!!

This is the entire purpose of trying to get *public awareness* out...They can still *have their cable TV* after the corruption has been taken care of...As a matter of fact, they're more likely to be able to *keep* the cable TV for *longer* if they rid themselves of the all-invasive control-freaks that rob them of their Rights while merely exchanging them for pretty pictures on the boob tube; After all, once they've got *total control* over a citizen's Rights, what will stop them from removing the *privledge* of watching those pretty pictures afterwards?

Besides, it's the Government itself that's *risking our security* so that they can tell us that they can *restore* it...So it's not even a "trade"; It's a "winner take all & we're going to win no matter what we need to take" type of strategy. The Government *is* using Hitler's stratagies...

Originally posted by FreeMason But regaurding amendment # 3 it doesn't say anywhere that Martial Law can not be declared.

Look at my comment again...I specifically stated that my comment was providing a hypothetical situation concerning Martial Law & states that if Martial Law is declared *Against the Tenants of the Constitution* then the declaration of Martial Law should be voided.


TC, I've edited the "title post" & hope that I've re-worded it to make it more clear.