Small Town News

Regional Politics

A "LIMITED" GOVERNMENT OR THE GOVERNMENT LIMITING THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE

The Southern Herald of Liberty, Mississippi

- Advertisement -



In the days of the U.S. Military being sent all around the world and it's soldiers dying in the name of freedom, the hypocrites sending them are taking away the freedoms of the people in its own country.

I know that the wording in the Declaration of

Independence is not part of our Constitutional Rights, but it is the mentality of our forefathers in creating a limited government, and it states, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ... "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I don't believe tnat we ve gotten so far that we need a revolution, but I do believe that the government is infringing on the rights and freedoms of the people to a point where the people need to take, and are taking, a stand against it. I also, believe that it is important that those in power cannot take away the rights of the minorities or those that are not in power. It's my opinion that our forefathers felt the same way.

The way that I learned about our government was that it was created into three branches so that no one branch could gain too much power and take away the rights and freedoms of the people. The only way that a law could be created, enforced and upheld was if all three branches of government agreed that the law was just and fair, but if either one of the three branches didn't agree that a law should be passed, enforced, and upheld, a valid law would not be created.

Even then, our government was created such that we all have the right to a jury trial, and the jury is to consist of our peers. It is my belief that the jury was to consist of our peers instead of members of the legislative, executive or judicial branch so that we the people would have a final means to protect our rights from being taken away by the government.

In addition to the way the government was created, we were given rights under the Constitution. These rights were to be protected so that no government could take them away.

Our recently passed and current governmental administrations seem to have forgotten these principals. Our government doesn't seem to agree that it should be limited or that we should have any rights unless specifically stated within the Constitution. They seem to be overlooking the Ninth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which states, "The enumeration in the

Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In fact, they just don't seem to care about the Constitution. Just look at the recent bill stating that the government has the right to detain and keep a United States Citizen without a trial or due process. That is a direct violation of the Constitution, but this administration doesn't seem to care.

The purpose of this opinion is because I believe that laws have been passed that denies us rights that I feel should be retained by the people, and a law enforcement officer has recently given me a citation for exercising one of those rights. I have been given a citation for exercising "freewill". This freewill decision I made does not and cannot possibly infringe on the rights, liberties, freedoms or lives of others. I was given a citation for violating the seatbelt law. This law was passed by dictators all over the United States who cannot offer any assurances with it, other than the assurance that they received a large amount of cash from someone for selling us out. If I obey this law, it could cost me my life; whereas, my life might be saved by breaking it. I think that fact alone ought to give me the right to decide for myself.

After several unsuccessful attempts to seek legal council, I finally spoke with an attorney who would actually take the time to discuss this matter with me. He told me that he could represent me on this issue, but I was going to lose. According to him, the state legislature has the right to pass this law and the courts don't have the authority to change it. Even though I appreciate him taking the time to discuss this matter with me, I respectfully disagree. I don't believe that the legislative branch was created superior to the judicial branch. In fact, I believe that the judicial branch was created to, not only uphold the laws that are fair and just, but to also protect the people from unfair and unjust laws.

The Webster dictionary defines Justice as "the upholding of what is just", and the judicial system was created to uphold justice. How can any law that dictates the freewill of someone be declared a just law? Especially when the freewill decision to be made does not infringe on the rights, freedoms, liberties or lives of anyone else. Any decision, whether it's to wear a seatbelt or not, whether it's to be over or under weight, or whether it's a decision on how to appropriately wear clothing as long as the clothing covers up private areas of the person should be left up to the individual making the decision. These decisions should not be left up to some bureaucrat.

My concern is the government's ability to take away the freedom of the people. If the government is allowed to dictate any personal decision it wants to, the precedence is set for the government to pass other laws dictating other freewill decisions like Obama-care requiring individuals to purchase a product they may not want; an obesity law which has been purposed (Look at what recently happened in Ohio. How much emotional damage do you think will be done to a child when he/she is taken away for his/her parents?); a law limiting the number of children a couple is allowed to have, such as the one in China which has also been discussed here in the U.S.; and others that are coming if these laws are allowed to be passed and stand. All of these laws and purposed laws violate the fundamental "constitutional principal" of a nation with limited government.

Simply put, either the government does have the right to dictate the freewill of the people or it doesn't. I don't believe the government has these rights.

Even though I'm not an attorney and I'm not affiliated with any political party or organization, I am a citizen that the Constitution was created to protect and I feel that it is now my responsibility to do my part to protect our civil liberties.

On January 19, 2012, I will be going to court in Guntown, MS. I'm not asking the court to rule on a single ticket. I'm not asking the court to rule on just this law. I'm asking the judicial branch to refuse to uphold the seatbelt law or any other law passed by the legislative branch that infringes on the peoples freewill as long as the freewill decision to be made does not potentially infringe on the rights, liberties, freedoms or lives of others.

If the court cannot justify refusing to uphold the seatbelt law, I'm going to respectfully request to exercise my Constitutional Right to a jury trial and see if a jury of my peers believes that the government has the right to dictate my freewill. I'm also going to ask this jury of my peers to consider the fact that they will be setting the precedence about the government's ability to pass laws dictating the freewill of the people.

Original Publication Date: January 19, 2012



More from The Southern Herald