States “Rights”

From the April 2004 Idaho Observer:


People, not states, have rights

In response to “Arizona prepares for secession from U.S.” (by Julie Foster, The Idaho Observer, February, 2004), Augustus Blackstone, author of “The Errant Sovereign’s Handbook,” weighed in with an interesting argument. It seems that, since the time of Christ, communities have been plagued with groups of humans who twist words so they will conform to their selfish, hypocritical ends. After allowing the following article to sink in, the role of lawyers and judges in modern society will take on historical significance. Twisted words reign supreme in the minds of hypocrites.

by Augustus Blackstone

The war between the States was one of the bloodiest and most costly wars this nation has ever experienced. And “States’ Rights” was the central issue that brought it on. If we do not want to repeat this tragedy in our history, with utter ruination of our country as a probable consequence, I suggest a more accurate use of terms — so there is no ambiguity as to the real issues involved.

To make a claim of “States’ Rights” under Article X of the Bill of Rights is an abuse of the Instrument. States have no “Rights” under that or any other “Constitutional” authority. Article X of the Bill of Rights addresses “States” and “Powers” (not “Rights”).

Article IX addresses “Rights” in relation to “the People” (not the States).

A “Right” is a statement of authority. The attendant “Power(s)” is the means by which that authority is made manifest or given effect. This is in perfect harmony with the Declaration of July 4, 1776, where our progenitors made it quite clear that ALL Men (the People) are endowed by their Creator (not man-made institutions) with Certain, (unambiguous, firmly fixed) Rights (authority), and that governments are instituted to secure that authority, and that these man-made institutions derive their just “Powers” (not “Rights”) from the Consent of the People (no Consent = no Lawful Power(s)).

States have no “Rights” and never have had that authority. While I agree that a restoration of States’ autonomy in self-governance under the original constitutional design is urgently needed, I do not subscribe to the notion that States (or the national government) have any “Rights,” nor did the architects of our form of government.

Neither do I subscribe to the notion that a new or revised (by Amendment or otherwise) Constitution is the “solution” to our current internal problems in this country. The existing Constitution (as it was originally written) is not the problem. The deliberately impaired ability to get its provisions enforced is the real problem. Without doubt, that corrective action must begin within the States and it must begin with the courts. It is no accident that our courts of justice (under Constitutional authority) have been systematically reduced to mere courts of “law” (under “statutory” authority).

Near the conclusion of Devil’s Advocate, Keanu Reeves (portraying the devil’s son) asks his father (masterfully portrayed by Al Pacino) who is the head of an immense international law firm, “Why law?” His answer was, “It gets us into everything. It’s the ultimate backstage pass. We are the new priesthood.”

Whoever wrote that script deserves a medal of some sort.

If we are to return Constitutional justice to our courts we will first have to identify who’s running them and why these deceitful and avaricious parasites have to be ejected before a remedy can occur. The following four definitions were taken from a current general English language dictionary and I have added parenthesized terms to illustrate the corollary.

hypocrisy — the false profession of desirable or publicly approved qualities, beliefs, or feelings, esp. a pretense of having virtue, moral principles, or religious beliefs that one does not really possess (form without substance).

Hypocrite — a person who practices hypocrisy, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs; a Pharisee.

Pharisee — a member of an ancient Jewish sect (BAR Association) that differed from the Sadducees chiefly in its strict observance of religious practices (rules, procedures, etc.), liberal interpretation of the Bible (original Constitution), and adherence to oral (unpublished and opinionated) laws and traditions. 2. a sanctimonious, self-righteous, or hypocritical person (attorneys and judges).

Pharisaic — practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion or conduct without regard to the spirit (form without substance); self-righteous; sanctimonious; hypocritical.

Unless I am mistaken, the founder of Christianity passed condemnatory Judgment on the practitioners of such conduct. You draw your own conclusions.

Leave a Reply