By Bob Greenslade
if you go back to our Constitution 101 classes you will recall that terms like “1st Amendment rights” and “2nd Amendment rights” are incorrect. Our continued use of them accelerates the destruction of our rights and distorts the SOLE purpose of the Amendments.
When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the States for ratification, it contained a preamble declaring its purpose. The first paragraph is the key and states:
“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
The preamble declares that the SOLE purpose of the proposed Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, if/when adopted, would place additional restraints on the powers of the federal government. They would not grant the people any individual or constitutional rights. The Amendments are simply an extension of the system of limited government established by the Constitution in an enumerated form.
Here is the problem. Government wants us to believe that the Amendments are the source of the rights and depend on the existence of the Amendments. Why? Because government then assumes the power to define the extent or existence of our rights. Exactly what is happening and why rights are being modified and eroded at the whim of government.
If we correctly refer to the SOLE purpose of the Amendments it creates a question and problem for government that is unanswerable and unsolvable.
Since the Amendments did not amend any existing provision of the Constitution or grant the federal government any additional powers, where was the federal government granted the original or subsequent power to define the extent of enumerated restraints placed on its power by Amendments of the Constitution 4 years after its ratification?
Any assertion that the federal government was granted the power to define the extent of enumerated restraints placed on its power is absurd and defeats the SOLE purpose of the Amendments. Why add restraints if government has the power to change or negate the restraints?…Indeed!