Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: You don’t have ‘Constitutional Rights’
Source: tenthamendmentcenter.com
URL Source: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201 ... nt-have-constitutional-rights/
Published: Dec 13, 2011
Author: Mike Maharrey
Post Date: 2011-12-15 02:59:47 by GreyLmist
Keywords: Tenth Amendment Center, Constitution, enumerated powers, Unalienable Rights
Views: 394
Comments: 2

You do not have constitutional rights.

You just have rights.

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

Unalienable: not capable of being repudiated.

You don’t worship as your conscience dictates because the Bill of Rights says you can. You don’t speak your mind because of a grant from the government. You don’t defend your life, family and property because the framers saw fit to write the Second Amendment.

Most Americans hold a seventh grade civics notion that the Constitution gives us certain rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights merely sets limits on the federal government, making clear it has no power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury. Except for a few procedural rights specifically for the trial process, the Bill of Rights does not actually bestow rights.

Many framers considered a Bill of Rights unnecessary. They argued that the nature of the Constitution rendered it redundant. The Constitution itself only grants the government specified powers. Since the Constitution extends the federal government no power to establish a national religion, they argued that it wasn’t necessary to specifically prohibit it. But others felt it necessary to make explicit certain government limitations, to better protect the liberties of the people. The preamble to the Bill of Rights clarifies its purpose.

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 insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The first eight amendments making up the Bill of Rights specify rights and privileges the federal government may not in any way abridge. It codifies protections of life liberty and property – rights each of us naturally possess – and enshrines specific privileges in the judicial system already accepted in Anglo-American law.

Finally, the Ninth Amendment makes the limiting nature of the Constitution clear.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The framers wanted to make sure everyone understood that the Constitution only grants the feds prescribed, specific, enumerated powers. The Ninth Amendment infers the corollary to this truth. The federal government may not exercise any powers not granted. And it makes clear that the few rights specifically highlighted in the Bill of Rights do not count as an all-inclusive list. The federal government cannot exercise ANY powers other than those granted.

Who possesses all other powers? The states and the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. – Tenth Amendment

It is important to understand that the Constitution does not create rights for the states or the people. It simply serves as a grant of power to, and a blueprint for, the structure of the federal government. The rights of the states and the people existed before the founding of the United States. The Bill of Rights clarifies limits on the power of the federal government. It declares “We, the people, retain our rights,” and prescribes that the creation of the federal government in no way limits the sovereignty of the states except where specified.

This may seem like an exercise in semantics, but the subtle difference in the actual intent of the Bill of Rights and the common notion that it serves as the source of rights is extremely important.

For if a government can bestow rights, a government can take them away. The Constitution was never intended to give government that kind of power. It was framed in a way to keep government from ever exercising that kind of power.

“It is the proper object of a written constitution no only to restrain the several branches of the government, viz. the legislative, executive and judiciary departments, within their proper limits, respectively, but to prohibit the branches, united, from any attempt to invade that portion of the sovereign power which the people have not delegated to their public functionaries and agents, but have reserved, unalienably, to themselves. “ – St. George Tucker, early American constitutional scholar and legal professor.


Poster Comment:

From the Comments Section at the article site:

"If it helps, think of the Constitution as a Limited Power of Attorney. If you give another party the authority to sell your car that doesn't mean they can take out a loan on your house."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: GreyLmist (#0)

The preamble to the Bill of Rights clarifies its purpose.

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 insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I had forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me.

"...The Disappeared Preamble

If you check an ordinary copy of the Constitution, turning to the section at the end where the amendments are listed, you’ll likely find the text starts right off with Amendment I, that prohibits Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

When I was in grammar school (public school, BTW) we had to memorize three key documents: the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and the Preamble to the Constitution. Plus we had to memorize the key point in each of the first 10 amendments.

It wasn’t until years later that I discovered that there was another preamble. I was looking through a set of facsimile copies of the nation’s Founding Documents and there, above the First Amendment, was a three-paragraph Preamble to the Bill of Rights. The relevant first paragraph 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.

Say what? Abuse of power? By our Government? Why, the very idea! Yet it was so.

This was a eye-opener. Here was a statement explaining that “a number” of states did not trust the federal government, fearing it might misconstrue or abuse its powers, and they hoped to prevent this from happening. Therefore, they asked that “restrictive” clauses be added -- to extend “the ground of public confidence.”

Or as Jefferson put it: “Bind men down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.”

Now of course I had been taught that the states demanded the Bill of Rights as a protective measure against the federal government. But this information was usually presented with an explanation that the states were unduly suspicious and that nowadays we know their fears were unjustified, and so on.

But it is one thing to have the reasoning presented and explained away, and quite another to see it in print; stated without apology by the authors themselves.

I’ve found no explanation for the apparent obliteration of the Preamble from text books and studies about the Constitution. Nor do I know when it was “disappeared” and dropped down the memory hole. It was not included in any of my text books – not in civics classes in high school or later in college. I’ve checked various text books and books about the Constitution, and it’s never there.

Today it is reproduced in articles on the Internet, but as far as books and other print sources go, were it not for facsimile copies, there would be no trace. The Internet, in effect, rescued the Preamble to the Bill of Rights from oblivion...." www.newswithviews.com/Foster/sarah103.htm

==========================

"Bill of Rights" Amendments Proposal and Discussion
ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENT OF,
THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 140

140 Of the twelve amendments proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, the last ten amendments were Ratified pursuant to the Fifth Article of the Original Constitution by the legislatures of the several States on Dec 15, 1791, and became what is known today as "The Bill of Rights."

During the first session of the first Congress under the new Constitution this self-explanatory resolution was passed: -- [ Click for JPG Image.]

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the Fourth
of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-nine.

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 exceeding the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution,

RESOLVED, by the Senate, and House of Representatives, of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, Two Thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States: All, or any of, which Articles, when ratified by Three-Fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz.

Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The above PREAMBLE was then followed by twelve proposed amendments, the first two of which failed of adoption. The first related to membership in the House of Representatives by population, and the second was against the taking effect of laws varying the compensation of senators and representatives until an election should have intervened. This second proposed amendment was resurrected in 1985 and ratified, becoming Amendment Article XXVII after ratification on May 7, 1992. Six States had ratified this proposed amendment in the two year period from 1790 to 1791, and between 1985 and 1992 an additional 33 States ratified this amendment proposal that was nearly 200 years old.

In ALL the presentations of the Bill of Rights today this most important part of the Bill Of Rights, setting forth the purpose of the Amendments, is left off. Without this Preamble we have no protection from those who would pass amendments, laws, or otherwise corrupt the Constitution.

I have taken the liberty to emphasis in red text the area I am referring to. Please join with me to correct this misconstruction of the Bill Of Rights before it becomes an accepted presentation. It is ESSENTIAL that we read and present the Constitution in it's entirety.

This MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution, and if it didn't, the Amendments spell out the Rights of the People the government couldn't change. Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!! It is imperative that the complete text be included in any study, interpretation or construction of the contents and the Limitations of government imposed by the Constitution for the United States.

It has been stated that some scholars don't think this is important. This is a fallacy.

It is IMPERATIVE for the following reason:

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede and restrict all previous parts of the Constitution, and restrict all subsequent amendments to the framework of the Bill of Rights amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments are a declaration in very plain language of the restrictions to the powers of government and "STATE".

There are people in this country that do not want us to know that this Preamble ever existed. For many years these words and understanding have been "omitted" from presentations of our Constitution.

Public and private schools and colleges alike have based the education of the people and their whole interpretation of the Constitution on this fraudulent omission. (Indeed, when I was searching for it, I was informed by the Dean of the Law School at UC Berkley, that the Bill of Rights amendments had no Preamble.)140

Corrupt judiciary and politicians have, through clever deception, erected interpretations and statutes that fly in the face, in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights amendments. The amendments and their declaratory and restrictive intent can be changed only by due process and the will of the people, as prescribed in the Fifth Article of the Original Constitution.

The Bill of Rights amendments, being declaratory and restrictive, are separate from all the other amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments restrict the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government and "STATE".

The deception is that government and "STATE" can interpret all of the Amendments and the Constitution itself, to serve the ends of "STATE".

By Omitting and Ignoring the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this has been done, usurping the Rights of the People.

As Thomas Cooley has said in "Principles of Constitutional Law":

"Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it . . . To pass an act when they are in DOUBT, whether it does or does not violate the Constitution, is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume."

We the People must end the deception.

The ten Amendments adopted make the so-called American Bill of Rights. The plain fact is that these Amendments do not confer any rights on anyone.

These RIGHTS are INHERENT to all FREE MEN, bestowed on them by their CREATOR.

Amendments I through X were added to the Constitution to safeguard the intent, purpose and restriction upon government in the protection of We the People from the abuse and usurpation of Freedom by the self-serving Tyrannical Despots and Bureaucracies in government and "STATE".

It has been seen that the Petition of Right, the Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights were favorites of the English peoples. Following the practice in the mother country, the colonists issued a Declaration of Rights through their first Continental (Stamp Act) Congress in 1765.

More than fifteen years before the adoption of these Amendments a Declaration of Colonial Rights had been issued (1774) by the Colonies through deputies sitting "in general congress" at Philadelphia. Reciting that they were "justly alarmed by these arbitrary proceedings of Parliament," which they denounced as "unconstitutional" and "formed to enslave America," they took "into their most serious consideration the best means of attaining" their rights and concluded to "do, in the first place, as Englishmen their ancestors in like cases have usually done for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties."

Then they made specific declarations, among them being that the foundation of liberty is the right to participate in legislative councils; that they were entitled to the "immunities and privileges" given by the colonial charters; that a standing army in the Colonies was "against law"; that restraint of "the right peaceably to assemble . . . and petition" is "illegal"; that "it is indispensably necessary to good government" that the "branches of the legislature be independent of each other" and that therefore a legislative council appointed at the pleasure of the King "is unconstitutional, dangerous and destructive to the freedom of American legislation"; and that Acts of Parliament directing that "colonists be transported to England and tried there upon accusations for treason" and other acts were "unjust and cruel, as well as unconstitutional."

The word "unconstitutional" appears in this Declaration of Colonial Rights again and again.

So Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, New Hampshire and some other States wanted a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and with the tacit understanding that they would have one they ratified it.NH, VA Some argued that all the guaranties in the Amendments already existed in the law transplanted from England; but that was a time of written charters and written constitutions, and, to remove every possibility of doubt, a Bill of Rights was wanted in plain writing. The very fact that a writing exists between men often prevents disputes. When both know definitely what the boundaries are neither is likely to make encroachments. That our forefathers were wise in not leaving such vital matters to inference, implication, or construction will be shown by an examination of the first ten Amendments. However, their Wisdom has been largely ignored by all three branches of government, and by We the People.

"The executive in our governments is not the sole -- it is scarcely the principal -- object of my jealousy," wrote Jefferson from Paris, urging upon Madison the need of amendments making a Bill of Rights; "the tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for many years. That of the executive will come in its turn, but it will be at a remote period." That time has come, NOW, as We the People and the Nation enter the 21st Century.

The Constitution already contained provisions belonging to a Bill of Rights, such as those forbidding ex post facto laws 64 and bills of attainder 63, prohibiting the suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus 62, requiring trial by jury 110 and at the place where the crime was committed, defining treason and limiting punishment 113, 114, 115, 116, granting the immunities and privileges of all States to the citizens of each State 119, and forbidding a religious test 136 before admission to office.

The State constitutions which were adopted in 1776 after the Declaration of Independence contained elaborate bills of rights for the protection of the individual; and, as elsewhere observed, those constitutions were the source of much matter selected by the Constitutional Convention.

The additional safeguards which were given to all men by the so-called Bill of Rights will now be examined. They contain nothing novel. They embody "guaranties and immunities which are inherited from our English ancestors," the Supreme Court (1897) has said. Notice that it is "Safeguards" that are given, Not "Rights", and unless We The People defend those safeguards and insist in strictest adherence, We The People will deserve neither Freedom nor Rights.

It must be again noted that these amendments do not confer any rights on anyone, they were merely a written safeguard that the government and "STATE" would not infringe upon the Natural Inherent Rights of All Free Men which are bestowed upon them by their Creator.

These Safeguards Have Been INFRINGED and SUBVERTED by the "STATE".

To better understand the deceptions, infringements and subversions, every concerned citizen and serious student should thoroughly read and study "Our Enemy, The State", The Classic and Brilliant Critique Distinguishing "government" from "STATE" by Albert J. Nock, and "The Law", by Frederick Bastiat.

Continue to The "Bill of Rights" Articles I -X

Reproduction of all or any parts of the above text may be used for general information. This HTML presentation is copyright by Barefoot, October 1996

Mirroring is not Netiquette without the Express Permission of Barefoot

Visit Barefoot's World and Educate Yo'Self"

www.barefootsworld.net/consti10.html

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2011-12-15   6:27:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: All (#1)

The Constitution already contained provisions belonging to a Bill of Rights, such as those forbidding ex post facto laws 64 and bills of attainder 63, prohibiting the suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus 62, requiring trial by jury 110 and at the place where the crime was committed, defining treason and limiting punishment 113, 114, 115, 116, granting the immunities and privileges of all States to the citizens of each State 119, and forbidding a religious test 136 before admission to office.

fatal flaw!!!

http://www.america-betrayed-1787.com/

George Washington's lasting gift to generations of Jews http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0915/p12s01-lire.html

brought us to this:

"...We can argue about who is most to blame, but the facts remain the same: Congress and the White House have been helping to establish a theocracy in America. That's right, in America -- the nation that used to be a land of religious freedom.

The would-be leaders of new theocracy:

* Want to abolish Christmas,
* Call Christians "idol worshippers,"
* Demand Christians give up their religion or be put to death,
* Preach that Jesus practiced sorcery, worshipped stone idols, and was sexually immoral,
* Want to establish a caste system in the US based on heredity and religion,
* Want to force US citizens to embrace a synthesized "religion" invented for a servant class.

And now, since the advent of the 9-11 war, the would-be leaders of this theocracy are stronger than ever. Little stands between them and the realization of their plans. ...." http://www.public-action.com/christmas.html

Upon seizing the reins of government, the new Noachide leaders will move quickly to implement a full agenda of reform. All economic and technological aid to the Communist Bloc, including the PLO, will be terminated immediately. Full support will be given to Israeli forces to reinvade PLO-controlled areas, with military assistance offered where necessary. Jewish courts (the batei dinim of the rabbis) will be granted full legal sovereignty over Jewish citizens within each country, who will no longer be subject to the authority of gentile courts. The pre-existing Noachide judges and courts will replace the existing court system of each country, and the legal code will be drastically rewritten to conform to halacha; in the United States, the emphasis will be on restoring the authority of the Constitution and abolishing all unconstitutional government programs and agencies. [ATKHWDI NOTE: i.e., give-away programs that got them entrenched in power, and the loss of which will cause the desired anarchy] The national debt will be foreclosed, probably by paying off creditors with government land holdings, thus averting economic disaster. And law and order will be fully restored through the establishment of internal security measures, again in accordance with Torah law....." [i.e., "Patriot Act", Rapist TSA, and of course, Obama to approve indefinite detention and torture of Americans — RT 36 minutes ago ... the government to detain American citizens without charge or trial? ... http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-veto-defense-853/ ]

The State constitutions which were adopted in 1776 after the Declaration of Independence contained elaborate bills of rights for the protection of the individual; and, as elsewhere observed, those constitutions were the source of much matter selected by the Constitutional Convention.

The original State Constitutions all made reference to "God" or a Supreme Being. I believe Virginia, where the cross was planted and this country dedicated to Jesus Christ and the spreading of the gospel [Micah 4:1-2, Psalm 2:6, http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55421 ], is the only one to make reference to Christ. George Mason wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights from which came the Bill of Rights, and in it he referenced Christianity. George Mason, like Patrick Henry [ http://www.spirittruth.com/index...ON-CHRISTIANITY-THE-BIBLE ], smelled a rat, and wouldn't sign the CONstitution.

All the state constitutions have what the U.S. Constitution lacks: God
Dec 17, 2006 ... What a shame that the federal Constitution itself is barren of God! ...Attempts were made in the 19th century to add language acknowledging God to the U.S. Constitution by amendment, but they failed..... Here are the relevant passages from all 50 state constitutions, followed by some observations by me: .... http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006943.html

=======

"Once one gets away from the popular propaganda about the United States being founded as a “Christian nation,” and looks to the real history, the pieces of the puzzle make much more sense. In truth, Christians have been lifting up a shout against our “God-less” and “Christ-less” governing documents since they were first written. In 1845 a pastor by the name of Rev. D.X. Junkin published the following against the oath taken by an American President sworn into office:

“The oath of the President of the United States could as well be taken by a pagan or a Mohammedan as by the Chief Magistrate of a Christian people: it excludes the name of the Supreme Being. Indeed it is negatively atheistical, for no God is appealed to at all. In framing many of our public formularies, greater care seems to have been taken to adapt them to the prejudices of the infidel few than to the consciences of the Christian millions.” (Source: Proceedings of the National Convention to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, by T.P. Stevenson, Corresponding Secretary of the National Association, p.iii)

The above quote is perhaps the most damning piece of evidence against the Revolutionaries, who began their declaration with “We the People” as if to suggest that they represented the interests of the greater body of Americans. In reality, as we see so often today, they did not represent “the People,” but rather their own minority opinion. We must note that this did not begin with Carter, Clinton, Obama and Pelosi – it began with Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin.

In the 19th century, T.P. Stevenson, the Corresponding Secretary of the National Association to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution wrote:

“That there is no acknowledgement of God or of the Christian religion in the Constitution of the United States, has been deplored by many devout and thoughtful men ever since that otherwise admirable political instrument was framed.” (Ibid, p.iii)

During the Civil War Era, the National Reform Association launched an effort to re-write the Preamble to the Constitution because it was believed that the war was God’s punishment on the country for leaving God out of the Constitution. In 1863, we read the following which had been drafted by Mr. John Alexander of Philadelphia:

“In this, the day of our national calamity, it becomes us to inquire what the Lord would have us to do ... In the earlier struggles of the people for national independence, the frequent acknowledgement of God and his authority ... gave evidence of a religious public sentiment in the nation ....But alas for human frailty and ingratitude! Instead of going on to promote more and more the glory of God and the rights of man, a terrible, and ... fatal backward step was taken in adopting that otherwise noble instrument (i.e. the Constitution) without any direct recognition of God or his authority and with a toleration of human slavery ... From that day the nation has been demoralized by the promulgation of an instrument as the paramount law of the land, which is far beneath the Christian sentiment of the nation .... And now God has arisen in His anger and is vindicating His own glory and the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Therefore His just judgments are upon us as a nation, and we must repent and forsake our national sins, or be destroyed.” (Ibid, p.iv)

It is quite interesting that the Christians of America recognized the wickedness of the slave trade in this country. Kidnapping men, women and children from their own countries and then selling them into demoralizing circumstances stood contrary to the commandments of God, and the mercy of Jesus Christ. It was for the cause of slavery that the children of Israel themselves became slaves in ancient Babylon. Because they refused to let their slaves free, God punished them severely (Jeremiah 34:14-17). It seems that believers in America at that time had an understanding of this. Alexander went on to say:

“We regard the Emancipation Proclamation of the President and his recommendation to purge the Constitution of Slavery as among the most hopeful signs of the times. But we regard the neglect of God and His law, by omitting all acknowledgement of them in our Constitution, as the crowning, original sin of the nation, and slavery as one of its natural outgrowths. Therefore the most important step remains yet to be taken, -- to amend the Constitution so as to acknowledge God and the authority of His law ...” (Ibid, pp. iv, v)

Alexander went on to say, “True, it may be said that under our present excellent Constitution we have enjoyed great prosperity ... But do we not know that God is long- suffering and slow to wrath ... Does not every one see that God is displeased with us as a nation, and has been provoked to bring upon us this terrible calamity?” All this having been said, the following amended Preamble for the Constitution was set forth by Alexander and his committee:

“We, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, [recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Saviour and Lord of all] in order to form a more perfect union ... do ordain this Constitution ...” (Ibid, p.v)

As we know, the attempt at implementing this Preamble in 1863 proved unsuccessful, but was far from the end of the issue. In the book, “Separation of Church and State” by authors Johnson and Yost, we read the following:

“From time to time efforts have been made to put what has been termed ‘God into our Federal Constitution.’ An Amendment was proposed to that effect in 1844. Again in 1865 President Lincoln had a delegation of ministers representing a number of different denominations call upon him in a similar effort. The National Reform Association has been instrumental in spearheading such attempts on various occasions. In an effort to recognize the Christian religion and Jesus Christ as its author, religious amendments were introduced in Congress in 1894, 1895, 1896, 1908, 1909, and in 1910."

It appears that no attempts have been made since then until July 15, 1947, when in the House of Representatives, Representative Louis E. Graham of Pennsylvania proposed that the United States acknowledge Jesus Christ as Saviour and King by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. On July 18 of the same year, Senator Arthur Capper of Kansas proposed a similar amendment. These two resolutions, House Joint Resolution 239 and Senate Joint Resolution 150, introduced in the Eightieth Congress, are identical and read as follows:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America ... The Preamble of this Constitution shall hereafter Read: ‘We, the People of the United States, DEVOUTLY RECOGNIZING THE AUTHORITY AND LAW OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SAVIOUR AND KING OF NATIONS, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice ...” etc. (Source: Separation of Church and State in the United States, by Alvin W. Johnson, Frank H. Yost)

The importance of showing this information to a modern Christian audience is to demonstrate that the United States, its Constitution, and original government was not a “Christian” entity as is often portrayed by certain teachers in our churches. The history as presented by these men can only be called “propaganda” designed for some other purpose, than giving an accurate portrait of America’s past. It is provable beyond any doubt that Bible believers in this country have objected to the pagan, deist, infidel Revolutionaries and their God-less government from the beginning.

Recognizing that false histories have been used to foment some of the most horrid and bloodthirsty movements in recent memory (Nazism, Communism, etc.), as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, we must be on the alert, and do our diligence to keep watch, and be certain to “prove all things” as the Lord has commanded us to do. For if we allow ourselves to be deceived, as the serpent beguiled Eve with his craftiness, will we not be without excuse before God? Have we not been warned? If we shut out the voices of the past, and those sober witnesses who have cried out, will we not be all the more guilty in the sight of heaven? Tyrants, wolves, and wicked men of every stripe have endeavored to manipulate the Church of Christ for their own evil purposes. Our responsibility is to maintain holiness and to walk in the fear of God, and resist these deceivers, lest we allow the churches in our nation to be used for a worldly and diabolical end.

« FREEMASONRY & THE FOUNDING FATHERS | Main | ANCIENT ISRAEL: AN EXAMPLE FOR THE CHURCH » "

http://www.noiseofthunder.com/ar...-to-the-constitution.html

so as they say, we can live under God [Jesus Christ, Isaiah 9:6-7, http://kingjbible.com/isaiah/9.htm / bible.cc/isaiah/9-6.htm ], or we will live under tyrants....it appears we have chosen the latter.

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2011-12-15   7:13:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest