By O. R. Adams Jr.


In America, our Declaration of Independence declares that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights." Our Founders considered these God given rights to be something that no government could or should take away from us. They were men who were well founded in political philosophy, including such writings as those of John Locke, the English Magna Carta and English history, and the Holy Christian Bible.

Many, such as James Madison, hesitated to try to set out in detail these basic rights of men in our Constitution for fear that there would be some they could not think of that would be omitted. If one word could cover them all, it would simply be freedom.

However, there were many that felt that we should have a Bill of Rights, setting out at least some of the more basic rights in our Constitution. This was agreed upon and immediately done in the first eight amendments to our Constitution. But the Bill of Rights was written by our Founders in a manner that was intended to convey that these rights were not being given by any government, and that no government would "infringe" upon these rights already inherent in the people. Then to make this even more plain, the Ninth Amendment, enacted at the same time, states:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny others retained in the people.

From my study of history and the forming of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights sets forth the most basic of what our Founders considered to be these inalienable rights in the order of importance set forth in the first eight amendments.

One of the most basic rights was the right of the people to govern themselves. Although it was not set out in the Bill of Rights, it was the primary purpose of the whole Constitution, starting out with the first phrase of the first sentence in the Constitution: "We the People." As Abraham Lincoln later recognized, the primary purpose of our Constitution was to create a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Unfortunately for this country, and for humanity, too, we are allowing these basic freedoms to be taken from us. Our legislators are continually passing laws that infringe on our basic freedoms, and like sheep, we hold our peace and allow it. Our Courts usurp one of the most basic rights in our Constitution, which is the sole right of the people to change it, and change our Constitution to what certain judges think it should be. In doing so, they overturn laws passed by the people and their representatives declaring them unconstitutional when in truth they are constitutional.

Let us look at one example of the thinking of four of our current Supreme Court Justices.

 Our Second Amendment provides:

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.

There is nothing at all that is complicated about the above wording. The right that was not to be infringed was the "right of the people." I assure you that the people who wrote those words were capable of stating what they wanted to, and had they meant that it was the right of the state militia to keep and bear arms, as certain liberal judges would like us to believe, our Founders were capable of saying so. Of course this would have been ridiculous, because any "militia" has that right, otherwise it couldn't be a militia. Yet we have four Supreme Court justices that, according to what they recently said in dissenting opinions on the subject, are really that asinine. They would have us believe that this right was meant to be reserved in something like the State National Guard. How absurd!

When our Constitution was formed, the word militia referred to all able bodied men among all of the people. In fact, our Founders were very much afraid of standing armies, of which national guards are a part. It was the people they wanted to be armed, and one of the reasons, as expressed by Jefferson and many others, was so that the people could oppose any government, including their own, that tried to take away their basic freedoms. When our Constitution was formed, the revolutionary war had just been won by men who fought the British using their own arms that they brought with them from their homes. Many did not even have uniforms. The idea that any government could prevent them from having firearms to defend their country and their freedom; to hunt, to protect themselves, their families, and their homes from Indians and others who might do them harm; was unthinkable to them.  

Nevertheless, in this last June, 2008, we would have lost our right to keep and bear arms, had there been one more liberal justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. Thanks to the fact that President George W. Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, this right was upheld in a five to four decision. (District of Columbia v. Heller, decided June 26, 2008 ) Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, and this opinion is a masterpiece incorporating all of the principles that should be used in deciding such a matter. The basis of the right was traced back through American and English history. The opinion considers the rights established by the Magna Carta (also spelled Magna Charta), and recognizes that our Founders considered self-defense to be an "inherent right." It is noted  that "[t]he right to self-defence is the first law of nature."

 When there are enough liberal justices on the Supreme Court to decide a case, their decisions will wrongfully change the Constitution to their liberal views, and the changes made will not only be contrary to the meaning intended by those who framed and ratified our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, but the changes will always be detrimental to our society and to our country. Let us look at just a few examples:

1. They invented a completely new group of rights for criminals that was not mentioned in or supported by our Constitution, that inhibits law enforcement, and that, when even inadvertently violated by an officer, frees criminals, including murderers. (Miranda v. Arizona) No such right was intended by our Founders. (See full explanation, pp. 141-147, A Way To Save Our Constitution From Judges, on this website under Books.) Our Constitution merely provides that a defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to the assistance of counsel. It does not provide that in the investigative stage, a criminal must be told that he is not required to say anything, that he is entitled to an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney he is entitled to have one provided at the expense of the State. And above all, it does not provide that evidence obtained without going through each and every part of this rigmarole set up by the court no matter how inadvertently could not be used in a trial. This is all court invented hogwash that has freed many murderers and other criminals. The best time to get the truth out of a person who has committed a crime, is when he is first apprehended. A person has to be stupid to admit anything detrimental after hearing all of the things required by the Miranda case and its forerunners on these matters. We have numerous erroneous Supreme Court decisions setting up such special rights for criminals that are contrary to our Constitution. 

2. They continually try to protect criminals, including the most heinous of murderers, from the death penalty. At one time they even declared the death penalty unconstitutional, even though all states had the death penalty when our Constitution came into existence and for many years thereafter, and the Fifth Amendment expressly recognizes capital punishment. Because of great public pressure, they reinstated a limited death penalty. (See a full explanation, Chapter VII, A Way To Save Our Constitution From Judges.) Recently, in Kennedy v. Louisiana, they declared a Louisiana statute unconstitutional under which a man was given the death sentence for the rape of an eight year old child. There is no such prohibition in our Constitution, and it is a clear example of the Court usurping the right of the people to pass their own laws.

3. Our Founders recognized very clearly the right of the people to pass laws upholding the morals of the Community, and all states had such laws when the first thirteen colonies became the United States. Such laws were those against sodomy, abortion, and obscenity. Contrary to our Constitution, the Supreme Court has now declared constitutional rights for abortion, sodomy, and pornography even some forms of child pornography. This destruction to our Constitution has all been done by liberal justices, and all of it is the exact opposite of what was intended by our Founders.

4. It has long been recognized, and even declared by our Supreme Court in older decisions, that America was a Christian country. Our laws were generally based upon Christian principles. The right to freedom of religion was contained in the first part of the First Amendment to our Constitution. But beginning with the "Warren Court," liberal justices have endeavored to remove all of our Christian heritages from our society. (President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren Chief Justice in 1953, and later remarked that this was one of his greatest mistakes.) It has been declared unconstitutional to even display the Ten Commandments in a public building. It was never intended by our Founders that the First Amendment would be used for such purposes. In fact it is the opposite of their intentions. Our courts, in an effort to protect the fallacies of Darwinian Evolution from being exposed, have held that evidence of intelligent design in nature could not be taught in school, even though many, if not all, of the greatest minds in history have recognized the inherent design in nature, including such great and diverse thinkers as Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein. (For more on Intelligent Design, see the three articles on the subject under Articles on this website.)  

Why would the people of this country give up these basic freedoms that are being taken from them by judges, and even by their elected representatives? My answer to this is primarily apathy it is much easier to be quiet and peaceful than to stand up and fight for these rights. A second, and almost as powerful a reason is that far too many people have become dependent on the government. Either they are actually dependent on the government for their livelihood, or a substantial part of it, or they are dependent on the government to pass laws favorable to their particular organizations and groups. Examples of this last are labor unions, homosexual groups, farmers, and the elderly. Rights, money, and property are taken from the people and given to the favored groups. Some of these groups are actively participating in the removal of our basic freedoms; and many sit idly by and allow their freedom to be taken from them to get their government doles.

The success of the Democrat Party has been getting more and more people dependent on the government. They thus buy votes with our tax dollars. This type of socialism is not compatible with our God given freedoms that our forefathers have fought so hard to secure and keep for us. Freedom is not free it requires responsibility and the will to fight for what is right.


On inherent rights of the people:

Two Treatises on Government, by John Locke

A Constitutional History of the United States (Two Volumes), by Andrew C. McLaughlin

The Declaration of Independence , by Carl Becker

The Bill of Rights Primer, by Akhil Reed Amar and Les Adams

On how our Judges and Justices have wrongfully changed our Constitution:

A Way To Save Our Constitution From Judges, by O. R. Adams Jr. (Under Books on this website.)