The corruption of the “Bill of Rights”

Copyright © 2002-2003, Ze’ev Atlas

First release 5/4/2003

The bill of rights came into being in order to assert the rights of the people and limitations of the power of government.  It was intended to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist." However, it was also a compromise between those who actually did not want it and sought to limit it in one side and those who were shortsighted enough to allow it to be too narrow and too vague.  The enemies of the Bill of Rights and the proponents of strong, all encompassing central government built throughout the generations on these narrowness and vagueness.  They corrupted it and invented Newspeak terminology to undermine the Bill of Rights and abuse its own existence toward their own ends.

The main weaknesses of the existing Bill of Rights could be summarized into three points:

·         In general, the only rights that are protected are those that the proponents of the Bill of Rights perceived at the time as the essential rights that could be threatened.  Other rights are covered only vaguely, if at all.

·         In particular, the more the said amendment is controversial, the more vague is the language chosen to express it.

·         The Bill of Rights is like a brick wall.  The said rights are designed to help protect each other.  The first few are necessary to guarantee the rest of them.  However, each one of them on its own is vulnerable.

This type of weakness is not limited to the Bill of Rights only.  The whole Constitution and indeed the whole conservative and unsuspecting way of thought of the majority of the people suffer from the same weaknesses.  People in general and the members of Congress at the time put the Constitution and these amendments together in good faith.  Most people could not conceive the future audacity of the enemies of freedom, honesty and decency.

Another problem that the Bill of Rights share with the rest of the Constitution is the overwhelming grip that the least accountable branch of the government, the Judicial, has over the interpretation of the Constitution.  It is a little known dirty secret that every student of History or Political Science is bound to find, but most choose to ignore. 

Let’s examine our subject matter in more details:   

Amendment I

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.

What is the simple, clear meaning of this?  The federal government and by extension (through the fourteenth amendment) any government in the United States cannot impose any state sponsored religion nor could it limit any religion.  It also may not prevent anybody from expressing himself[1] by any means of reasonable expression and it may not prevent people from organizing together in order to use such vehicle of expression in form of petition to influence the government to change its actions.

It is true that the amendment does not seem to limit the freedom of speech to only means of reasonable expression, but this is implied by the word peaceably describing the manner in which the free speech, free press and free petition could be executed.

On the other hand, the amendment does not require any wall separating church and state other than the church may not be state sponsored and that the state has no right to limit that church.  As this amendment is about the freedom of expression, it came to strengthen and ensure the freedom of religious expression, any possible one, from the possible tyranny of state imposed religion!  It also implies the freedom of access both to means of expression and to the expressed opinion.

Now, let’s see how was this corrupted to mean the opposite of what it says.  The easiest to show is the repression of religion.  This repression was done by corrupting and negating both aspects of the amendment, the establishment of state sponsored religion and the prohibition of other religions’ free expression.

1.       Imposing state sponsored religion

In order to show that, we must define religion!  There is no such definition in the amendment itself but we have a pretty good idea what did the people who wrote it have in mind; some set of beliefs in some deity, claiming to posses the knowledge or the direction to some absolute truth with some hierarchical or otherwise organization and set of rituals designed to maintain that set of beliefs and its believers.  It is easy to see that the requirement for a deity or divinity of any nature may not be proven and is therefore not necessary.  And indeed we have some such organizations that define themselves and are recognized as religions without any deity or claim for divinity such as the church of Scientology or Reform Judaism.  So we may reduce the definition of a religion to some set of beliefs, claiming to posses the knowledge or the direction to some absolute truth with some hierarchical or otherwise organization and set of rituals designed to maintain that set of beliefs and its believers.

Surprisingly, what is called Modern Science does fall under this definition.  It is a set of beliefs, it claims to posses or pursue the true knowledge of the nature of world and it has a foreboding hierarchy to maintain this set of beliefs and its grip on the people.  This hierarchy is constituted of clear hierarchy of high priests known as the Academic Apparatus with Deans, Professors, assistance Professors, Doctors, Masters, Bachelors, etc.  It has rituals to admit people into this hierarchy and rules to keep people who are outside of it, away of access to its benefits.  Underneath this hierarchy there is an organized effort to impose and perpetuate this set of beliefs through an educational system that virtually requires that the teachers would be part of that hierarchy[2] and only its beliefs would be taught while forbidding any other teaching.

I do not claim that Modern Science does not posses the absolute true knowledge; it might!  I just claim that it is a religion and as such must not be established by the government.  Yet, it is indeed imposed in such a manner.

Apparently, this claim is the hardest to grasp concept in this entire article.  It is the one that seems to be the most outrageous.  The average reader would say at this point that I seek to get noticed by being outrageous.  It is not so and I would dwell on this here with some detailed explanation. 

My first point is that religion and science do not necessarily oppose each other.  Most religions do not have any problem with most aspects of science except of two basic areas, the origin of the world and ethics.  We could examine the infamous incident of the Catholic Church in the 16^th century and persecution of Galileo because of his discovery that the Earth is rolling around the sun and not vice versa. Galileo was coerced to renounce his theory by being threatened that he would suffer the consequences of being declared a heretic.  The Catholic Church at the time was a victim of its own political power and the need to maintain it.  It was also the subject of its own inflicted major problem of rigid dogma and totalitarian behavior that managed to give bad name to all religions.  But this incident just illustrates why the American Constitution wanted to deny any political power to any Church so it may not abuse this power.  Looking deeper even to that specific incident shows that the Church did not accuse Galileo of negating the Holy Scriptures.  The Holy Scriptures is discussing scientific phenomena rather sparsely.  What Galileo negated was the Church endorsed Aristotelian scientific theory.  But the Church could as well have chosen to endorse Galileo’s theory.  Hence my argument that there is no inherent contradiction between religion and science.

The origin of things is where both religion and science are standing on very shaky ground.  None of us was present in the time of creation and none of us was present when the first dinosaur began to fly (if we believe Darwin.)  All scientific theories and all religion beliefs about the origin of this world and its inhabitants are based on speculations and predictions of the past rather than real science or observation.  Frankly, when we observe the complex living things such as humans and dwell on their complexities and abilities, the religious explanation seems to be more plausible.

Ethics is even more important point.  The scientific establishment does not seem to have any limits.  We could clone humans, so let’s do it; we could use body parts to cure other people problems, so let’s harvest them; we could play with human mind so let’s produce Prozac and so on.  It is not clear that all religions are capable of dealing with such questions better than the scientists.  But most religions at least do put ethics before the “need” for absolute knowledge.

The scientific approach to Ethics originates from Plato and his three casts society.  In the top of the Platonist society is the philosopher-king, one that posses all wisdom, but in return he may do almost whatever he wants.  The Platonist society is the basis for the Fascist and Communist totalitarian societies and it is the anti-thesis of any real democracy.   The scientific establishment in its core possesses this Platonist philosopher-king ethos.   It is this ethos that drive these people to develop cures for diseases based on harvesting human body parts like Stem Cells, cloning humans and other such mischievous deeds.  It is their grip on the educational system that was described earlier in this essay that allow them to act with no fear of consequences.

The Platonist philosophy has clear religious aspects.  It is seeking to find the origin of things, it does have inherent hierarchy and rituals and as any good ol’ religion, when it comes to power it does whatever it could to discredit its rivals (naturally, other religions,) destroy them and eventually take over their believers.  The zealous struggle against religions could not be understood but only if we see it as a missionary drive of an evangelic religion.

Unfortunately, these people, using the uniqueness of deity-less religion and the ignorance of the common people, convinced the rest of the world that they are not a religion and that their teaching in the disguise of science, are somehow different and on other level than the teaching of the other religions.  They managed to establish themselves in the same position that the American Constitution deprived the Catholic and the Anglican Churches (and any other honestly self declared [as] religion) from. 

2.       Imposing hardship on people who choose to access the religious expression and thus in practicality, preventing access to the religious expression and preventing religion from expressing itself.

The amendment does not contain or implies in any way, shape or form, any limitation on people who choose to practice any religion of their own choice.  It does not impose any penalty on such people.  Indeed, being part of and in the context of the bill of rights, the amendment is supposed to limit the government, not the people.  Conversely, it is supposed to protect the people against the government.

In a major abuse of its powers and by inventing some form of Newspeak, the judicial branch of the government perverted this amendment to do the exact opposite of its clear intention.  The explanation for that statement is somewhat indirect but that does not change the net effect. 

The best way to insure the continuity of any religion is to teach it to the next generation.  Conversely, the best way to undermine a religion is to eliminate its educational system or limit access to that educational system.  The latest fact is well known and well understood by all involved parties.  Now, the main tax imposed on individuals in the USA beyond income tax is usually the local property tax.  Structurally, the lion share of this tax is used to pay for all aspects of public education.  If one wants to send his children to a parochial school, he has to pay tuition to that institution.  This is fair and widely accepted; except that this tuition covers not only the religious studies but also the full (one hundred percent) price of the general studies, which usually are equal or at least equivalent to whatever is taught in the public schools.  However, there is no exemption for such parent from the local property tax that, as already mentioned, cover the costs of public education.  The net result is double tax and for many religious families with more than the average number of children, even triple or quadruple tax.

Such heavy and unfair taxing imposes economical hardship on this segment of the population.  Such people who could already be stressed by scarce and thinly spread economical means, may have to make a choice literally between bread to eat or religious education.  By imposing the double tax, hidden behind the vicious Newspeak interpretation of the first amendment, known as the “Lemon Test”, the judicial branch negated these words of the amendment ”or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, practically denying access of the religious message and to the religious message for people with low income and thus practically “abridging the freedom of speech”.  Moreover, as I showed before, this grim choice is marred by the knowledge that the children will be exposed to a different and hostile religion.

Now that I showed that the first sentence of the first amendment, which is dealing with the freedom of religion is practically dead and there is really no more freedom of religion, let’s continue to the rest of the amendment, dealing with freedom of the press and any speech in general.  It is clear that many aspects of freedom of speech are under legal, regulatory and legislative attacks.  In today’s technology driven communication, the printed, paper based press lost its centrality.   The main vehicle of communication is the TV but its channels are auctioned to the big media conglomerates and are therefore closed to individuals.  The new oligarchy of media magnates and personalities struggles for its own power and control.   They seek control of the channels to political influence.  Leveraging on their propaganda power they’ve managed to pass the Campaign Finance Reform that is designed to maintain both their own access to free speech and political influence and to guarantee their own exclusivity in that access while denying such access to others.   By doing so they marginalize any potential rival to power and destroy the free speech principals.

The Internet could be the great equalizer as anybody may publish on it but accessing it requires that the reader should actually search for ones message or at least subject matter.   

The fair use of copyright material is under attack by some legislative initiatives such as UCITA, lows such as DMCA and other planned or existing legal vehicles.  Again, the danger here is twofold.  The Media magnates monopolize access to the channels.  They acquired the power to decide who would and who won’t be distributed and therefore whose ideas would be promoted.

When congress is criminalizing DeCSS[3] for example, it may not only breaking (as in bringing to a status of disrepair) the antitrust laws but also may be engaging in unconstitutional activity (possibly negating the Fourth Amendment.)  By creating splitting hair terms like in the campaign finance reform they may be satisfying the supreme court but breaking the spirit of the First Amendment.

On all these the Jury is still out as there are battles fought right now on each of these fronts.  Yet it is clear that the rest of the amendment is crumbling under the heavy hands of its well-equipped opponents.

I am a religious man and I think that this amendment is fundamental.  I sacrificed my future and lifestyle in order to provide my children with a religious education.  It breaks my heart to know that they will have to struggle even harder against the diminishing freedom and the hardship that is to be imposed on them in a world that is again involved in religious wars.

Amendment II

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.

Well, let’s ask again, as we might do on each one of the amendments, what is the simple, clear meaning of this?  Unfortunately, this was than as it is now the most controversial issue.  Gun fans wanted this to be an individual right, gun opponents wanted to tie this right to some positive reasoning such as the security of the state, so to limit the possible use of guns.  Big government proponents were afraid for the survival of any government in a state where the citizens may pick arms and assemble into a non-regulated militia.  But freedom lovers wanted to insure that the state whose security would be protected, must be a free state.  All these aspects were combined together into an uneasy and vague compromise.

The way it reads in English (rather than Legalese or sheer Newspeak) implies all these aspects.  There is an individual undeniable right to keep and bear arms, which is tied to and limited by the possible necessity of calling such individuals to active duty with their weapons in a well-regulated manner, in order to protect the freedom of the free state.

This amendment is under heavy attack.  Even though it is clearly in the scope of the Bill of Rights and is intended as an individual, albeit limited, right, the Newspeak speakers are laying the groundwork for corrupting that meaning.  The Clinton administration had the audacity to try to declare it as a state rather than individual right, emphasizing the well-regulated Militia aspect and claiming that this is the National Guard.  While they failed in that particular effort, it is clear that the next Democratic administration will do it again and with any change of the balance in the Supreme Court they will succeed.  The second amendment chances of survival beyond the next decade are all but doomed.

It is interesting to note the double-headed attack.  The same politicians and media magnates who work together in order to corrupt the First Amendment are cooperating in marginalizing the supporters of the Second Amendment.  They use the Campaign Finance Reform to deny the supporters of the Second Amendment access to the political power.  This demonstrates how the articles of the Bill of Rights are interwoven and any damage to one is damaging the others as well.

I am a member of the NRA, the forefront of the freedom fighters in this country.  But with the diminishing First and Second Amendment, our fight is that of the rear guard.

Amendment III

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.

This was a big deal for the colonists in the late Eighteenth Century.  The American Government learned to leave with that and is taking enough taxes to finance suitable barracks so this is a non-issue.   Actually the residue of this amendment adversely influences the structure of the USA.  It provides the Government with the initial justification of ever growing taxes.  These taxes leave too much disposable money in the hand of the Government, who may in turn, spend it on programs to feed its cronies.  These cronies become into an ever-growing class of people who would resist any change in that structure.   Thus, the big government perpetuates itself and the productive working citizens foot the bills.

Amendment IV

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.

Lawyers love this amendment and criminal activity is never a concern for big government proponents.  On the contrary, it is a great propaganda tool to show why such a government is needed.  The war on terror and the technological orientation of today’s communication are stretching the limits of the amendment.  Nevertheless, it is clear that the government may get warrants when it is really necessary.

When the remnants of the first and second amendment will finally crumble to dust and no real opposition to big government will be possible, this one will be the next to go.

Amendment V

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.

This is probably the only major amendment that is working as advertised.  Moreover, in a strange twist of events, it might serve to protect some parts the Second Amendment, at least for convicted criminals.   As gun opponents are proposing guns registration as a precursor to guns confiscation, the Fifth Amendment ensures that such convicted criminals (and actually any felon) would be exempt.  Convicted felons are prohibited from owning guns by US Federal law.  According to the Fifth Amendment, such convicted felons cannot be required to register their guns because that would force them to confess to the crime of illegally owning a gun.

The NRA publication, American Rifleman used to lament this until I (and maybe others) pointed to them that this could actually be defined as a new ‘right’, the right to not register guns.  If the Fifth Amendment protects criminals from gun registration then, by extension, any citizen could potentially avoid gun registration and when brought to trial claim that he once may have committed a felony (for which he would take the Fifth for the specifics) and by doing that, automatically acquired an exempt from the registration law requirements.

This amendment is the most secure as politicians, big business leaders, attorneys and accountants who might be involved in monkey business would always want to maintain something like this as an additional failsafe measurement.

Amendment VI

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 defence.

Lawyers make living off of this amendment.  There is no clear initiative to corrupt it.

Amendment VII

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.

Ditto!  Lawyers make living off of this amendment as well.  There is no clear initiative to do away with it.  Yet, it is known that this amendment was (ab)used both by whites in the old south and by blacks in New York and elsewhere, to pervert justice.  With racially charged trials of late, guilty people walk free while innocent people have to resort to non-jury trial in order to assure some fairness.

 

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ditto!  Lawyers make living off of this amendment as well.  There is no clear initiative to corrupt it.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Once the first two would collapse, this one will become defenseless and is doomed.  Besides, who will make the decision what are the other rights “retained by the people.”  With enough Newspeak we will come to believe that the constitution meant only the right to breath air.  And if you do not believe it, see the newspeak, used by the Clinton Administration to have us believe that the Second Amendment does not contain any individual right.

Amendment X

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

The last amendment of the bill of rights is moving away from individual rights and talks about the states’ rights.  It is pretty clear that the mentioning of “the people” is an afterthought and gives precedence to the states. 

Beyond the Bill of Rights

Of the other amendments and indeed the whole constitution the most significant for the subject of individual rights are the abolishing of slavery and the suffrage for women.  I hope to talk about those in more details in future version of this essay.  But the one amendment with the most corrupting effect is the Sixteenth Amendment.

Amendment XIII

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Article XV.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XVI.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This amendment appears not to talk about individual rights; indeed, this amendment lays the ground for creating a legally sanctioned class system and is the basis to unequal treatment for different people.  The very principle of equality in the eyes of the law is shredded by the interest of the government to raise more money.  The government acquired the right to charge different tax rates to different people.  The same practice that is condemned when theocratic regimes charge higher taxes to certain religious minorities or when Marxist regimes over tax the bourgeoisie is now sanctioned by the Constitution based on economic class.

This amendment in effect, negates and corrupts of very principle of “no taxation without representation”.  It does not matter whether the sliding scale income tax is the most fair way of taxation or not!  The fact is that the masses that do not really carry the burden impose the tax on those who do.  By imposing an income tax system, in which the smaller, more affluent class subsidizes the much bigger less affluent and less or not-at-all affected by taxes class, the government created a situation where those who vote FOR taxes are not the ones who would pay them.  The representation of the real taxpayers is diluted and diminished into a virtual ‘taxation without representation’ situation.  And knowing the other side’s propaganda about the rich who somehow get tax breaks, I would like to say that I do not talk about the rich because in today’s (2002-2003) value of the money people in the $80000 to $120000 are not rich, yet they probably are the most taxed group of the population, disproportional to their income and to this socio-economical group relative size within the population. 

The American Revolution started under the slogan of “no taxation without representation” and remedied this problem.  No government likes to be thus influenced by its citizens.  The ever-growing bureaucracy needing ever more money invented a mechanism to increase its share of the available money.  Instead of economize its operation and cut unneeded or clearly out of government’s scope programs that benefit its cronies, the government sought and with a lot of Newspeak propaganda also got such a mechanism that automatically linked the government revenue to the GNP and beyond.  Note that the amendment does not mention the basic right of the people to be treated equally, thus opening the door for the government to charge different percentage rates to different people.  The main burden of the income tax is on the Middle Class consists of people who earn significant income but not enough to hide it in tax shelters, to be taxed significantly more then any other class.

Some of this ill acquired money goes to the government cronies under the guise of welfare.  The rich and powerful do not pay their fair share as they hide their income in tax shelters.  They give money to politicians in order to preserve this order of things.  These two classes thus support the government and the voice of the middle class is lost and is being grind between the other two.

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.