~ Where the Sun Will Never Set on Our liberty ~
I am certain this is a significantly covered topic. The trouble with what's out there is a lack of objectivity. You be the judge. I'll do my best to deliver the facts. Separating it out like this makes it much easier for me, and for you, not to confuse the observer and the observed, nor to invert and be subjective from either view.
What does the Declaration of Independence establish? It tells you in most certain terms:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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. -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Emphasis done for those who may find it useful.
For instance “certain unalienable rights” will engender the idea of “specific” (limited) rights today, when, at the time, it meant “absolute,” contrary to the United States Supreme Court's rulings, suggesting, “no right is absolute,” where the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” phrase originates, though, often by omission. The phrase is “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater” making the idea of protected Freedom of Speech not being absolute, subject to the criteria that the speech is untrue, inaccurate, deceptive, and intended to mislead, cause panic etc., 249 US 47, at page 52, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/47/case.html.
This was just one illustration of how Free Speech is used to destroy Free Speech, and is backed up by this paragraph from the Hartford Courant, regarding gun control in Connecticut, a few months after the Sandy Hook incident of a mentally deranged person's actions:
“....[T]those using the Second Amendment to justify their right to have high-powered guns with high-capacity gun magazines might be accommodated under an interpretation of the Constitution that would have been applied by our Founders, even as Connecticut considers stricter gun rules.” -- http://articles.courant.com/2013-02-01
Now, the import to this is that the author, Saul Cornell, who explains they fully understand the “interpretation of the constitution that would have been applied by our Founders,” is advocating for gun control by that article, placed in the commentary section, of course, but he makes sure his credentials are noted too:
“Saul Cornell of Redding is a Second Amendment expert and constitutional historian and the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University.” -- Ibid.
So, the take away is this: That, using the Constitution as intended, pursuant to how it was written, we discover absolute rights and absolute limitation imposed on government would be our Founders' interpretation.
Now, I know some of you are saying, “Littman's lost it, he's citing the 2nd Amendment as part of the Declaration of Independence!” Actually, no, I am saying that the Constitution that limits government, and is ratified by the People, is an act and historical factual event in execution of the Declaration of Independence as Our Written Will, that the Constitution constitutes “the consent of the governed,” and that the 2nd Amendment's language, pursuant to the preamble of the Bill of Rights, is intended:
“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.”
So ends the idea the “Bill of Rights” is expressing the Rights of Individuals under a national government's absolute power, treated as an instrument establishing the “privileges of US Government subjects.”
The above is merely an aid.
The fundamental principle of all politics throughout history is a Master and servant relationship. Socrates even discusses slavery, without any abhorrent denouncement but as an accepted institution of Greece in Plato's Republic. Tribal Chieftains to the Blueblood Crowned heads of Europe, the politics, even after the existence of America, still the same, understood by these 2 simple inherent questions: Who is the Master? Who is the servant?
These questions, until the existence of the United States of America with a written Constitution, that even ends the institution of slavery by 1808 (see Article I, Sec 9, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html, Federalist 38, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_38.html, and Federalist 42, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html), was answered by a Feudal hierarchy, guild system and noble classes, as well as a parliamentary institution of the “House of Commons” and “House of Lords” never yielding the government to be anything but levels of Masters all under a final Master, a Crowned head.
So now we must play at parsing for clarity, no other reason. “Servitude” and “slavery” are easily identical terms, based on conditions of “employment” which is merely the using of something to achieve an end. If the employment features an ownership clause over you, and treats you as property, it is slavery. However, when done by a Sovereign Crowned head, or a parliament, who makes the law, and adjudges for themselves by whimsical political standards, without a written Constitution, which would mean the entire of Europe, “subject” is included as slavery.
Servitude is employment, and the 13th Amendment, while abolishing slavery, separated out “involuntary servitude” as abolished as well, which is saying in reverse it is not abolishing voluntary servitude.
Do you see the Master and servant relationship that in the modern day is considered “labor law” or “employee employer” law? I mention the modern day to help understand by parallel, not as the standard.
In a nutshell, because it's easy to get “out in the weeds,” so to speak, on this, the Constitution's directive language, its use of “shall,” and “enumerated” powers, instead of “general powers,” without one scintilla’s presence of the word “grant,” or the phrase “grants the people,” explains it is a document establishing a collective public servant to carry out the needs of each Individual's Will. Representatives are intended to hear all constituents, as a matter of their job in public service, the job they volunteered for, by election or even accepting a bureaucratic appointment, and because the constituents constituted the government these public servants volunteer to work for the constituent who is their Master.
The American Constitution, for the first time in known, recorded, history of mankind, in a most clever move of absolute genius, created a government in servitude to carry out the Will of the People as their employer and Master in complete reversal of the role of the private “House of Lords” noble class, the peasant subject doing the bidding of those who demand homage or subject that peasant to imprisonment, the rack, or other public spectacle to intimidate the remainder to obey the “noble” and heed the will of the Guild (modern day union, see “Screen Actors Guild,” the Hollywood Union, http://www.sagaftra.org/about-us/mission-statement).
Yes, the Screen Actors Guild uses remnant terms of the Feudal Era of Oppression (while screaming their actions, even if lies, are protected free speech). As well, the Dark Ages before the Age of Enlightenment and where the Sentience of each Individual is recognized sacred, shattered by bold America, who by Constitution is Individual Liberty living a free way of life in self government, all secured and assured by a government of public servants serving each one of us as their Master. Said one more way, people living their life by our public servant government's execution of the Principles of the Declaration of Independence, though carrying out their job according to the particulars of the Constitution.
This is the Fundamental American Politics that those who cannot handle the responsibility that comes with Freedom want to destroy. They do not care if they eradicate the choice of Freedom from the face of the Earth, as, to them, if that can happen it was meant to happen, and if they did it, it is meant for them to abscond with whatever they can get from the end of Freedom and Individual Liberty.
At least now you know, subject, why you are taught your “constitutional rights.”
God Bless you, thank you for reading and sharing this,