Tag: Bill Of Rights

Why The 2nd?–Revisited

I was bored today…..so I thought I would toss a grenade and see where the damage would be…..

With all the shootings lately I expected to see some sort of revival of the 2nd Amendment debate…..so far I have been disappointed….I guess it is up to me to get the engines firing….

Many years ago while the nation was in the middle of one of our famous gun rights debates I wrote a post that was the highlights of a longer article I wrote explain why I felt the 2nd was put into the BoR.

As history buff I am always interested in the opinions on defining moments in our history….

I re-post my original for readers to get a feel of my thinking…..

Why The 2nd?

I recently came across another article that looked deeper into the 2nd than the mindless twaddle that people try to use in the debate these days….

One mass shooting after another, one accidental child death after another tears through this country on an almost daily basis. Once again, lawmakers hide behind “thoughts and prayers,” while clinging to an amendment that has been twisted beyond recognition. But to understand why the Second Amendment exists at all, we must strip away the myths and confront a brutal truth: it was not written to safeguard freedom, but to preserve slavery.

The militias it enshrined were never about defending homes from tyrants abroad but about keeping human beings in chains at home. Until America reckons with this history, we will remain shackled to its bloody legacy.

So, let’s clear a few things up.

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “state” instead of “country” (the framers knew the difference—see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave-patrol militias in the Southern states, an action necessary to get Virginia’s vote to ratify the Constitution.

It had nothing to do with making sure mass murderers could shoot up public venues and schools. Founders, including Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison, were totally clear on that, and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were called “slave patrols” and were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/the-second-amendment-was-created-to-put-down-slave-revolts/

Please let your thoughts be known.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Remember The US Constitution?

That may seem like a silly question to some….but I think it is a valid one.

True many Americans know the term but how many know the document?

I would post a link about here but why no one would use it?

You realize the the Bill of Rights was not part of the original writing of the Constitution, right?

Nope it was not it was an add-on thanks to the work of the anti-Federalists….the BoR was put in to protect one group from the other….but was it a unanimous decision to do so?

What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think about the U.S. Constitution?

For many people, the answer probably involves one of the famous individual liberties that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech, due process, or the right to keep and bear arms. When a person argues that something is unconstitutional, what that person often means is that it violates one or more of the provisions contained in the Bill of Rights.

Yet the Constitution did not originally include the Bill of Rights when it was ratified in 1788. Why not?

The answer is that some of the framers of the original Constitution feared that if certain rights were enumerated in the text, all of the other, unenumerated rights would be left wide open for government abuse.

“It would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up,” declared future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell at the North Carolina Ratification Convention in 1788. That is “because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation.” What is more, Iredell declared, “it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let anyone make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it.”

That was the position taken by those who came to be known as the Federalists. They thought that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was a bad idea not because they were against individual rights, but because they despaired of what might happen to any rights that were not specifically written out.

But the Constitution’s Anti-Federalist critics were not persuaded by such concerns. “The want of a Bill of Rights to accompany this proposed system,” declared the Anti-Federalist pamphleteer who went by the pseudonym “John DeWitt,” “is a solid objection to it.” In his view, “to express those rights” which the government may not infringe was a necessary and proper safeguard against “the intrusion into society of that doctrine of tacit implication which has been the favorite theme of every tyrant from the origin of all governments to the present day.”

https://reason.com/2025/08/14/was-the-bill-of-rights-a-bad-idea-some-founding-fathers-thought-so/

There is so much about our early history that most do not know and schools do very little to change all the misconceptions.

Some say that we as a nation are heading for a constitutional crisis….I disagree we are already ass deep in one….and I am not alone….

There is a lot of talk these days about the desire to be king….that has been going on for longer than you may think….

At no time in our history has there been so illustrious a gathering as the corps of delegates who came together in the State House (Independence Hall) in Philadelphia late in the spring of 1787 to frame a constitution for the United States of America. After Thomas Jefferson, the country’s envoy in Paris, ran his eyes over the roster, he wrote his counterpart in London, John Adams, “It really is an assembly of demigods.

Yet, distinguished though they were, the delegates had only the foggiest notion of how an executive branch should be constructed. Not one of them anticipated the institution of the presidency as it emerged at the end of the summer.

One frightful goblin haunted their deliberations. The study of history — ancient to modern — instructed them that republics were always short-lived, and they feared that America might quickly adopt kingship.

https://www.americanheritage.com/shall-we-have-king

And it only took 250 years….

So that leaves it up to me and my fellow political historians to correct all the misconceptions….we just hope someone is listening.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Erosion Of Rights

We have a Constitution and then we had an add-on that we now call the Bill of Rights.

Our Bill of Rights contains many amendments that deal with just about all aspects of life as an American….but those rights are been chipped away slowly but slowly….and in recent years that chipping has become harder and more extensive….

Since 20 January 2025 the government has attacked many of of the Rights put down by the Founding Fathers….those attacked have been numbers 1,5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 15, 22, 23….and the attacks continue.

So do these attacks mean that some think the BoR was a bad idea and needs changing?

Well if they do then they are not alone….from the very beginning some of the Founders were not so keen on the BoR…..let’s look at the start of the debate on this section…..

What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think about the U.S. Constitution?

For many people, the answer probably involves one of the famous individual liberties that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech, due process, or the right to keep and bear arms. When a person argues that something is unconstitutional, what that person often means is that it violates one or more of the provisions contained in the Bill of Rights.

Yet the Constitution did not originally include the Bill of Rights when it was ratified in 1788. Why not?

“It would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up,” declared future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell at the North Carolina Ratification Convention in 1788. That is “because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation.” What is more, Iredell declared, “it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let anyone make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it.”

That was the position taken by those who came to be known as the Federalists. They thought that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was a bad idea not because they were against individual rights, but because they despaired of what might happen to any rights that were not specifically written out.

But the Constitution’s Anti-Federalist critics were not persuaded by such concerns. “The want of a Bill of Rights to accompany this proposed system,” declared the Anti-Federalist pamphleteer who went by the pseudonym “John DeWitt,” “is a solid objection to it.” In his view, “to express those rights” which the government may not infringe was a necessary and proper safeguard against “the intrusion into society of that doctrine of tacit implication which has been the favorite theme of every tyrant from the origin of all governments to the present day.”

Thomas Jefferson, who was then stationed overseas as the American ambassador to France, shared this Anti-Federalist critique: There are “good things” about the new Constitution, Jefferson wrote from Paris in 1787, but one thing “I do not like” is “the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not the law of Nations.” According to Jefferson, “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

https://reason.com/2025/08/14/was-the-bill-of-rights-a-bad-idea-some-founding-fathers-thought-so/

At what point do we allow this assault to continue?

Does anyone really care about the loss of rights?

Please let me know.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

AI Bill Of Rights

The Biden group has issued what is being called a new Bill of Rights….they take on technology…….

The White House rolled out a proposal for an artificial intelligence Bill of Rights Tuesday, saying that while automated systems have “brought about extraordinary benefits,” progress “must not come at the price of civil rights or democratic values.” The blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy lists five principles that should be built into AI systems to protect the public from discrimination and violations of privacy, Axios reports. The White House warned that automated systems including those used for patient care “have proven unsafe, ineffective, or biased,” and algorithms used in hiring decisions have been found to “reflect and reproduce existing unwanted inequities or embed new harmful bias and discrimination.”

The principles state that Americans should know when automated decision-making is being used and they should be able to opt out. They state that algorithmic bias should be limited and users should be given control of their data. The White House said the document was released after a yearlong consultation with two dozen government departments, as well as tech companies and civil society groups, the AP reports. The proposals are nonbinding and government regulation of artificial intelligence remains “minimal or nonexistent,” Axios notes, though numerous other sets of AI guidelines exist, including EU guidelines released in 2019 and an “algor-ethical” proposal the Vatican released in 2020. Companies including IBM have released their own ethical guidelines.

“This is the White House saying that workers, students, consumers, communities, everyone in this country should expect and demand better from our technologies,” Alondra Nelson, OSTP deputy director for science and society, tells Wired. Nelson says the blueprint is “really just a down payment” on moves to limit harmful AI, though critics say the proposal should have included a framework to hold people and companies responsible for abusive AI practices. The US Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, warned that if some of the recommendations become law, it will “handcuff America’s ability to compete on the global stage,” reports Reuters.

I support the idea…..but corporations will see that their paid agents in Congress will make this just a fart in the political wind.

But for those interested in the bill and the actions….I have the link for you…..

https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/

Read it and decide for yourself….

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Rights As A Weapon

The First amendment….the 2nd amendment….seem to the two most cited….probably because those are the only ones that mean anything to most Americans.

It always amuses me when in-bred dumbass stump jumpers start complaining about their rights…..when it comes to their incitement rhetoric or their right to pray to a shopping cart and especially when it is their right to own a 1000 weapons designed for combat…..and now it is their right to infect others with a disease because they do not like the precautions.

Where does all this stupidity end?

Best answer is no time soon….thanx to the lies and bullshit on social media….

I read a article about a book that touches on the situation of rights used as a weapon….

Human rights are generally thought of as defensive in nature. That is, they are held up by certain individuals and groups as a means to protect their dignity from the state or other malevolent actors. Moreover, rights are often viewed as either philosophically grounded in principles of human dignity and/or religiously endowed by a creator. Even absent a philosophical or religious grounding, rights are often regarded as legal concepts and taken as inviolate. These views of human rights treat them as generally positive and used by oppressed groups for liberal ends. In Rights as Weapons: Instruments of Conflict, Tools of Power, Clifford Bob cuts against the hagiography of human rights, and rights in general, to focus on the fundamental political nature of rights and how they are often used strategically, aggressively, and even for “illiberal ends”.

…

Rights as mobilizers. As Bob notes rights are particularly potent motivators of political action. He lists five reasons for this: 1) because rights are perceived as natural in that they have deep roots, 2) rights are also perceived as universal applying across space and time, 3) rights are perceived as absolute in that they are inviolate and can trump other political issues, 4) rights are perceived as apolitical putting them above other petty political squabbles, and finally, 5) rights are violated by one’s foes.

Review – Rights as Weapons: Instruments of Conflict, Tools of Power

Thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

That Bill Of Rights

Closing Thought–18Dec19

All the talk about the Constitution these days leads me to want to help readers understand the entire document and that includes a portion that was added later…the Bill of Rights.

Many of the rights and liberties Americans cherish—such as freedom of speech, religion, and due process of law—were not enumerated in the original Constitution drafted at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, but were included in the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. How much do you know about the Bill of Rights?

Answers to question like why was it added? Where was it written? Who wrote it? And others

Let’s begin with ….What is the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. These amendments guarantee essential rights and civil liberties, such as the right to free speech and the right to bear arms, as well as reserving rights to the people and the states.

The Bill of Rights has its own fascinating story as a distinct historical document, drafted separately from the seven articles that form the body of the Constitution. But ever since the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights has also been an integral part of the Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-bill-of-rights-2

To help my readers understand the Constitution beyond using the word to make some mindless point…..there is an aid to reading the document that ALL Americans should know front and back…….

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/the-constitution

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

The Year Was 1791

1791 was a busy year in American history…..the beginnings of the Whiskey Rebellion and the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

First let’s go to the Whiskey Rebellion……only a few short years after the end of the Revolution and we are at it again……

What started as a tax in 1791 led to the Western Insurrection, or better known as the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, when protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting.

On March 3, 1791, Congress instituted a tax on distilled liquors to help pay off the debt from the American Revolution. Treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton had initiated a program to increase central government power, and the tax was to fund his policy of assuming war debt of those states who failed to pay.

During this time the western part of Pennsylvania was separated from the east by the Allegheny Mountains.  Farmers, the majority of the population, found there was a limited market for their grain locally, and it was difficult to transport the grain to the east for sale. So instead, farmers converted their grain to whiskey, which made it easier to transport and more marketable.

https://www.legendsofamerica.com/ah-whiskeyrebellion/

For those pressed for time or just plain lazy……

Now in my opinion this “rebellion” was part of the reason for the 2nd amendment….you know the amendment that cause people to go blind with rage.

About 5 years ago I wrote my thoughts about the 2nd amendment and why it was included in the Bill of Rights…….(again these were my thoughts)

https://lobotero.com/2013/01/30/why-the-2nd/

It is always a joy for me to share some history with my readers…..hope everyone learned something……

Class Dismissed!

Shredding the Fourth Amendment in Post-Constitutional America – The Unz Review

In this world where many are worried about the first and second amendment rights…………Everybody and I do mean……..EVERYBODY has an opinion on the loss of privacy and such…….but the 4th amendment is being shredded and no matter where you are on the political spectrum………you should be WORRIED!

 

Shredding the Fourth Amendment in Post-Constitutional America – The Unz Review.

U.S. Plummets in Global Press Freedom Rankings | Free Press

If you are reading this then I am still battling lawyers over my father’s estate…..I set this to be published at 1330 hrs….just in case…..

We are so proud of our ‘freedoms’ especially the freedom of press….maybe we should pay closer attention to what is happening or that ‘freedom’ could be lost…..

U.S. Plummets in Global Press Freedom Rankings | Free Press.

Is The 1st Under Attack?

Of course it is!~  Well depends on who you talk to……everyone has a different view of the attacks….there are those that claim it is under religious attack….others see speech as under the gun…..even others see that the freedom of press is being assaulted……no matter what or which section you are concerned about there is situation brewing in the UK that could have wide ranging consequences…..

AS reported in the UK’s Guardian newspaper……..

The seizure of journalists’ notebooks, photographs and digital files could be conducted in secret hearings, owing to a little-publicised clause in a government bill aimed at cutting red tape, media organisations have warned.

Requests for notebooks, computer disks, photographs or videos must currently be made in open court and representatives of news groups can be present.

But the clause – in the deregulation bill, which comes before the Commons on Monday – significantly alters the way courts consider so-called “production orders”, stripping out current safeguards.

The underlying rules governing whether police can have access to material will remain the same but without media groups being present it is feared that judges will be more easily persuaded to authorise police seizures of journalistic material.

You know if this succeeds then it will be looked at closely here….I mean as we lose more and more of our rights to privacy….this would be just the next logical step…….

Thoughts?