How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd[W:55]

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Tennyson said:

The question was did the Ninth Amendment protect individual unenumerated rights or was it a centric protection of state's rights and powers as a rule of construction limiting the broad interpretation of Article 1, Section 8 congressional powers via the necessary and proper clause.

Click to expand...

No, that's the question you want to answer, which was the basis for the question I need answered because it defends the constitution. The question I need to ask frames the constitutional intent properly for the 9th because it upholds and defends the constitution. Or, the constitution, enables us to defend itself IF we use it properly.

If the framers intended for the people to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend serve the purpose of enabling the unity in the people required to actually alter or abolish a government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights?

Click to expand...

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

ChrisABrown said:

No, that's the question you want to answer, which was the basis for the question I need answered because it defends the constitution. The question I need to ask frames the constitutional intent properly for the 9th because it upholds and defends the constitution. Or, the constitution, enables us to defend itself IF we use it properly.

Click to expand...

You stated that the Ninth Amendment regarded unenumerated rights. The plain language of the amendment circa 1789 does not support that; the intent does not support that; and the orginal public understanding does not support that. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were created at the behest of the states to protect the states from broad interpretation by the federal government.

What does not exist in the annals of American history is evidence that the Ninth Amendment protected unenumerated rights of individuals.

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Tennyson said:

You stated that the Ninth Amendment regarded unenumerated rights. The plain language of the amendment circa 1789 does not support that; the intent does not support that; and the orginal public understanding does not support that. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were created at the behest of the states to protect the states from broad interpretation by the federal government.

What does not exist in the annals of American history is evidence that the Ninth Amendment protected unenumerated rights of individuals.

Click to expand...

Seems that this;


Goes beyond protection IF state Citizens act as a majority in a state.

Are you evading this question then? And the word "people" as it is used is the state controlled by a majority.

If the framers intended for the people to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend serve the purpose of enabling the unity in the people required to actually alter or abolish a government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights?

Click to expand...

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

ChrisABrown said:

Seems that this;

~~~Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.~~~
​

Goes beyond protection IF state Citizens act as a majority in a state.

Are you evading this question then? And the word "people" as it is used is the state controlled by a majority.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I do not understand either statement from a constitutional or historical view. Can you rephrase.

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Tennyson said:

To be honest, I do not understand either statement from a constitutional or historical view. Can you rephrase.

Click to expand...

If the framers intended for Americans to have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend serve the purpose of enabling the unity in the people needed to effectively alter or abolish?

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

ChrisABrown said:

If the framers intended for Americans to have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend serve the purpose of enabling the unity in the people needed to effectively alter or abolish?

Click to expand...

That was not a concept and the unity of the people was not much of a cocept. The gist was the relationship between the sovereign states and the federal govenment.

Article V would be a first step of altering the government and that was via the states.

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Tennyson said:

That was not a concept and the unity of the people was not much of a cocept. The gist was the relationship between the sovereign states and the federal govenment.

Article V would be a first step of altering the government and that was via the states.

Click to expand...

I'm good with all of that, EXCEPT that unity was not vital.

Actually, we have a retained right to unity, we are the freaking united states for America. And that is not to be denied or disparaged.

How the h*ll is Article V going to have all amendments with constitutional intent when states cannot define it, congress cannot, and the court cannot either? They can only interpret what is written. All the rights the people have may not be written and listed, BUT, they are retained, meaning only the people can define them.

I want to thank you for your honesty and unconditional belief in the constitution, but it's better than you thought when the proper type of critical thinking, inference and deduction are applied. And you've already done 85% of it while stating your understandings very well.

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

ChrisABrown said:

I'm good with all of that, EXCEPT that unity was not vital.

Actually, we have a retained right to unity, we are the freaking united states for America. And that is not to be denied or disparaged.

How the h*ll is Article V going to have all amendments with constitutional intent when states cannot define it, congress cannot, and the court cannot either? They can only interpret what is written. All the rights the people have may not be written and listed, BUT, they are retained, meaning only the people can define them.

I want to thank you for your honesty and unconditional belief in the constitution, but it's better than you thought when the proper type of critical thinking, inference and deduction are applied. And you've already done 85% of it while stating your understandings very well.

Click to expand...

I am not stating that unity is not vital; I am saying that since the United States was not founded as a unitary government, the concept of unity was not a constitutional construct, but rather a state construct.

Regarding "rights retained," to put it another way, the Ninth Amendment preempts the federal government from defining "rights retained." This would align with your synopsis.

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Tennyson said:

I am not stating that unity is not vital; I am saying that since the United States was not founded as a unitary government, the concept of unity was not a constitutional construct, but rather a state construct.

Regarding "rights retained," to put it another way, the Ninth Amendment preempts the federal government from defining "rights retained." This would align with your synopsis.

Click to expand...

Okay, that I will accept. But it is clear from the existence of Article V and the inferred limits of its stating that all amendments must have constitutional intent, that the people must be unified across the states to be "the rightful masters of the congress and the court", and they can be by law because they are the only entity that can newly define rights and see them listed through their states authority at Article V.

Therein is how the 2nd Amendment is protected by the 1st Amendment if it needs reinforcement by clarification of the extent of the right to bear arms. Thanks again for your participation here.

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

ChrisABrown said:

Okay, that I will accept. But it is clear from the existence of Article V and the inferred limits of its stating that all amendments must have constitutional intent, that the people must be unified across the states to be "the rightful masters of the congress and the court", and they can be by law because they are the only entity that can newly define rights and see them listed through their states authority at Article V.

Therein is how the 2nd Amendment is protected by the 1st Amendment if it needs reinforcement by clarification of the extent of the right to bear arms. Thanks again for your participation here.

Click to expand...

Good exchange. I enjoyed it.

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Tennyson said:

Good exchange. I enjoyed it.

Click to expand...

Oh BTW. here is the product of my work to understand the 9th AMD and see state Citizens use it to defend the constitution. I mean I hounded you to answer a question when I knew the answer to make a point, and you held your ground as best as you could. So I should at least produce that for you.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling the peoples unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

That free speech serve its PURPOSE is a retained right that is vital to defend and enforce the constitution. Otherwise it will be overcome by special interests empowered by various corruptions. It is also vital for the sharing of information regarding the destruction of unalienable rights.

I've written a draft revision of the 1st AMD that can get the job done. Here it is.


The First Nations people had a doctrine titled, "The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech", an absolutely brilliant piece of philosophy that is incorporated in the revision. I believe the framers knew it and wanted it in the Declaration Of Independence (DOI), but the torys were paying people in gold to oppose them in that. The fact that the DOI has the last 30% proves that well enough.

The idea that all speech is free has made the unspoken, erroneous notion that all speech is equal. Accordingly government can ban no speech, but the principles in the revision from the First Nations shows which speech the government must support. Curiously we see that PBS and NPR as well as local public access tended to do that, but they ended up inadequate and corrupted. To me that indicates that the more positive bastions of power historically know that free speech has a purpose and tried to at least make token features of benevolence to manifest it.

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

ChrisABrown said:

Oh BTW. here is the product of my work to understand the 9th AMD and see state Citizens use it to defend the constitution. I mean I hounded you to answer a question when I knew the answer to make a point, and you held your ground as best as you could. So I should at least produce that for you.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling the peoples unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

That free speech serve its PURPOSE is a retained right that is vital to defend and enforce the constitution. Otherwise it will be overcome by special interests empowered by various corruptions. It is also vital for the sharing of information regarding the destruction of unalienable rights.

I've written a draft revision of the 1st AMD that can get the job done. Here it is.

---REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution---​

The First Nations people had a doctrine titled, "The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech", an absolutely brilliant piece of philosophy that is incorporated in the revision. I believe the framers knew it and wanted it in the Declaration Of Independence (DOI), but the torys were paying people in gold to oppose them in that. The fact that the DOI has the last 30% proves that well enough.

The idea that all speech is free has made the unspoken, erroneous notion that all speech is equal. Accordingly government can ban no speech, but the principles in the revision from the First Nations shows which speech the government must support. Curiously we see that PBS and NPR as well as local public access tended to do that, but they ended up inadequate and corrupted. To me that indicates that the more positive bastions of power historically know that free speech has a purpose and tried to at least make token features of benevolence to manifest it.

Click to expand...

Oh BTW. here is the product of my work to understand the 9th AMD and see state Citizens use it to defend the constitution. I mean I hounded you to answer a question when I knew the answer to make a point, and you held your ground as best as you could. So I should at least produce that for you.

Click to expand...

There is a distinct demarcation between the first eight amendments and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The first eight amendments have history that dates to the Magna Carta and were absolute restrictions on the federal government regarding the enumerated rights.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have no history. They were proposed by the states to prevent broad interpretation of the enumerated powers of Article I.

The First through Eight Amendments regarded individuals and the Ninth and Tenth regarded the states.

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Tennyson said:

There is a distinct demarcation between the first eight amendments and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The first eight amendments have history that dates to the Magna Carta and were absolute restrictions on the federal government regarding the enumerated rights.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have no history. They were proposed by the states to prevent broad interpretation of the enumerated powers of Article I.

The First through Eight Amendments regarded individuals and the Ninth and Tenth regarded the states.

Click to expand...

Very interesting, and makes sense, but there is a history to the 9th that is not of European origin.

~~~~~Prior to 1871 the United States participated in a treaty making process with the First Nations because this technique was the obvious "legal" answer to westward expansion. Treaties, as defined by the Supreme Court did not incorporate a "grant of rights to Indians, but a grant of rights from them." Originally treaties were contracts between sovereign nations and accordingly were "the supreme law of the land." If Wasichu wasn't smart enough to think of everything he wanted and get same into the relevant treaty then "any right not expressly extinguished by a treaty...is reserved to the tribe." This is known as the "reserved rights doctrine." (Pevar)~~~~~

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

ChrisABrown said:

​

Very interesting, and makes sense, but there is a history to the 9th that is not of European origin.

~~~~~Prior to 1871 the United States participated in a treaty making process with the First Nations because this technique was the obvious "legal" answer to westward expansion. Treaties, as defined by the Supreme Court did not incorporate a "grant of rights to Indians, but a grant of rights from them." Originally treaties were contracts between sovereign nations and accordingly were "the supreme law of the land." If Wasichu wasn't smart enough to think of everything he wanted and get same into the relevant treaty then "any right not expressly extinguished by a treaty...is reserved to the tribe." This is known as the "reserved rights doctrine." (Pevar)~~~~~

Click to expand...

The treaty making processes regarded alliances vis-a-vis the French. The treaty making process started with The Great Treaty of 1722 Between the Five Nations, the Mahicans, and the Colonies of New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

The "reserved rights" doctrine in the treaties with Indians was based on sovereignty. I do not know if that concept pre-dates 1791 or not.

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Tennyson said:

The treaty making processes regarded alliances vis-a-vis the French. The treaty making process started with The Great Treaty of 1722 Between the Five Nations, the Mahicans, and the Colonies of New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

The "reserved rights" doctrine in the treaties with Indians was based on sovereignty. I do not know if that concept pre-dates 1791 or not.

Click to expand...

Legally, technically that rings true, but the 1st and the 9th are in our DNA as natural law and the framers realized it. I believe the reserved rights doctrine is probably very old as is the origins of the spiritual, philosophical basis of the free speech.

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

ChrisABrown said:

Legally, technically that rings true, but the 1st and the 9th are in our DNA as natural law and the framers realized it. I believe the reserved rights doctrine is probably very old as is the origins of the spiritual, philosophical basis of the free speech.

Click to expand...

I believe if you read the debates of the First Congress and some extraneous writings by the Framers and Ratifiers, in the context of codification, freedom of speech only dates to the Massachusetts Body of Liberties. I do not know of the concept pre-dates that or not. That does pre-date the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments could be regarded as unalienable and natural rights, but in the context of sovereign states rather than an individual rights. The Ninth is a blend of the two, but as an Article I, Section 8 interpretation limit on the federal government

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Tennyson said:

I believe if you read the debates of the First Congress and some extraneous writings by the Framers and Ratifiers, in the context of codification, freedom of speech only dates to the Massachusetts Body of Liberties. I do not know of the concept pre-dates that or not. That does pre-date the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments could be regarded as unalienable and natural rights, but in the context of sovereign states rather than an individual rights. The Ninth is a blend of the two, but as an Article I, Section 8 interpretation limit on the federal government

Click to expand...

The First Nations people, who Jefferson, Franklin and Washington knew well, had a doctrine titled, "The Greater Meaning of Free speech", which was primarily of their oral histories. It is likely that the framers wrote of it, but their writing have been pilfered, sometime re-written and returned through decendents "finding" a lost letter or other writing that are forgeries, quickly approved by an available authority. It went like this, I mentioned it in the post where I posted the draft revision of the 1st Amendment.


As I said, the tories paid gold to people in the community surrounding the framers as they were trying to get support for the Declaration of Independence, to oppose the inclusion of the "heathen" philosophy. The framers thought they would be able to get it into the Bill of Rights, in better conditions, but the conditions actually got worse. However, because of the 9th and Article V, the people can compensate by controlling their states with majority opinion.

Here is the legal process that is available. Not taught in schools, it is the process that Lincoln was thinking of when he said, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court."

The American Lawful and Peaceful Revolution

the best thing about it is that it only depends on the people to initiate and creates a way for the people to lead, and the leaders to follow.