IGNORANT JUDGES ARE LETHAL TO LIBERTY
DEMAND CONGRESS SECURE OUR RIGHTS
It seems that every week there is some new attack on Liberty. Last month, it was the US Navy trying to remove Religious Liberty in the name of "Separation of Church and State." Last week it was our Congress, removing the right of trial and habeas corpus from US Citizens, and obliterating the protections of Posse Comitatus.
I am grateful to our Patriots who continue to send Faxes to Congress as the proper redress and demonstrate that "Eternal vigilance is the only safeguard to our Liberty." While our most urgent concern is petitioning Congress to restore the right of trial, obtaining proper writs of habeas corpus and restoring the Posse Comitatus protections, in this article I will outline additional rights we will need to protect in the upcoming year.
I attribute these constant attacks on our Liberty to the dismal state of our education system. We the People are so very ignorant of not only what our Liberties are, but of their source and value. Ask someone to tell you the five specific protections that exist in the First Amendment and you might hear one or two, followed by a blank stare and silence. Those that hate the fact that Liberty is an inherent possession of the people and want Liberty to be something the government gives to the "worthy" have really taken advantage of this gross negligence. If we do not know, if we do not understand what our Liberties are, how do we recognize when they are under attack?Our legal education system is not any better. Rulings that fly in the face of our Founders' intent illustrate the shaky foundation given to our lawyers and judges. In a recent example a federal judge has taken it upon himself to decide who has the right to freedom of the press and its protections and who does not. This judge has done so by determining that a blogger, who has over 400 blog sites that publish her work, cannot possibly fall under the august title of journalist. After all, we all know that the only people that are journalists are those represented in the White House Press Corps or paid by top media corporations. We definitely cannot accept as REAL journalists those who consider themselves "bloggers" and only publish on the Internet!
That is exactly what this federal judge has done. Oregon statute reads:
"[n]o person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the publicshall be required by … a judicial officer … to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise … [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public""Medium of communication" is broadly defined as including, but not limited to, "any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system."
However, this judge has claimed that this woman is not a journalist because she:
"fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system"
I am amazed at the focus of this judge. He has taken examples in the statute asqualifications, a litmus test for arbitrarily defining and determining media, completely ignoring the very plain statements 'any medium of communication to the public" and "not limited to.' Any other time, a judge would be using this language to bring in everything as qualifying, including the kitchen sink. This "judgment" stinks of motive. But the judge is not finished with his restrictive definition of media. He claims in order for Ms. Cox to be "media" she must show…
"evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting 'the other side' to get both sides of a story."
This time, however, the judge uses no statute, no legal source to develop this further definition. This is apparently something he has come up with all on his own. I wonder if many in mainstream media could hold up under this standard. I know for a fact that today's "journalists" fail in at least 5 out of 7 of these benchmarks. I mean really, when was the last time you heard this level of journalism from any US mainstream media? Because Ms. Cox does not fit this judge's internal definition of media, she is therefore not afforded the same protections as a paid member of the mainstream media due her under Oregon statute.
Would our Founders, so vital to the very establishment of Liberty, have qualified as journalists under these standards? What about the Committees of Correspondence founded by the likes of Richard Henry Lee, Sam Adams, and James Otis, Jr.? These Committees were dedicated to the purpose of providing the colonists with the truth about the activity of the British Government. Many colonists were tired of the propaganda and false reports coming from the King, Parliament, and their dedicated media and wanted to know the truth. The Committees of Correspondence provided this truth. They also became the Sons of Liberty and sparked a revolution.
I'm sure Thomas Paine would've landed on this federal judge's chopping block, as well. After all, he was not paid by any media corporation and was definitely not approved by the crown for his Common Sense publications. We cannot forget about Mercy Otis Warren, who through her prolific writings of articles and plays encouraged a nation to stand against tyranny. Once again, I doubt if she would have been considered a "journalist" under this judge's guidelines; she had no education in journalism, she was not employed by a major media outlet, and she certainly didn't interview "the other side" to get the
British Government's perspective of the story. She didn't have to; she was living it.
But how did our Founders intend to handle this "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press"? The best argument I can offer is that of Alexander Hamilton's, as he states in Federalist Papers 84.
"…why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
Hamilton argued with the likes of James Madison and Richard Henry Lee that an incorporation of the Bill of Rights would be a danger to the very Liberty that they hoped to protect. He believed to his core that if the Bill of Rights were incorporated in the Constitution, Â that it would provide to those who wanted to control Liberty the exact excuse to do so through definition and regulation.
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted… I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
Hamilton actually uses the illustration of the freedom of press. He reasonably argues that there is no need to insert a protection of freedom of press, because the federal government had been given no power to interfere with this Liberty. Hamilton knew, as Madison points out in Federalist 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined." Madison continues to specifically list those powers as "principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." Hamilton pointed out that regulation of freedom of press, or any of the proposed rights, was not part of the powers given to the federal government so they would have no right to attempt to regulate it.
Hamilton's greatest fear was that by attaching a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, evil men who wanted to control Liberty would then claim a right to regulate Liberty. So here we are, fulfilling Hamilton's greatest fear, coincidentally using his very illustration.
We are today in the midst of a startling attack on some of our most fundamental civil liberties. The Senate passed a bill that will undermine the very due process rights that thousands of brave souls have bled and died for.
Under the guise of protecting us from terrorists, Congress has removed the Constitutional right of habeas corpus. The implied premise is that the right of habeas corpus is somehow a threat to national security.
The principles of habeas corpus and due process extend as far back as 12th century England. These civil liberties were among those most fearfully guarded by America's Founders. If truth be told it was abuses of due process and an unresponsive government – not simply burdensome taxes – that were the primary causes of the American Revolution.
We cannot lose sight of the real issue. The federal government can never have the right to suspend the Constitutional rights of US citizens without due process, because the government is not the source of those rights. All other arguments against or for these provisions become irrelevant when there is even a possibility of US citizens having their Constitutional rights suspended either temporarily or permanently at the discretion of the federal government.One prominent "journalist" attempting to refute the criticisms of concerned citizens, said that, "The United States Constitution is a compact between the American people and the government they created. It endowsAmericans with protections against U.S.-government overreach." This ignorant mistake is widespread among the American "elite" and must be dispelled. In fact, the Constitution doesn't endow citizens with anything.
The founders in the Declaration of Independence clearly state that these inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator, and in the words of Patrick Henry "the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect US citizens from an unlawful and arbitrary government. The current NDAA legislation clearly violates this principle this is something every citizen should be concerned about. The Act MUST be amended or corrected in committee during the reconciliation process, if our liberty is to be secured.
Our Constitution and our Liberty are in dire peril because our legal professionals have no idea of the history behind our Constitution and the reasoning our Founders put into its provisions. Our lawyers and judges cannot honestly honor their oath to the Constitution, because they have no true understanding of its meaning. They cannot do as John Adams commanded, "have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to support it" and ensure a "free republican government" when they are ignorant of the Founders' intent.
We the People must fill this void. We must become the ones educated enough to make that conscientious determination to support, protect and defend the Constitution. Reading it is not enough. Knowing case law is not enough. Just as any legally binding contract, we must understand what the parties intended the obligations and limitations of government to be. Otherwise, we just end up pooling our ignorance. In this case, ignorance is not bliss, it is the death of Liberty.
Keep Faith,
Lynne Roberts, President
Americans United for Freedom
Americans United for Freedom
KrisAnne Hall is a former prosecutor and Constitutional attorney who was fired from her job for teaching the Constitution to citizen groups. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor's wife and a patriot. Her former employer, State Attorney for Florida's 3rd Judicial Circuit, gave her a choice – give up her First Amendment right to speak on her own time or be fired. KrisAnne said, "My First Amendment rights are worth more than a paycheck and I will not surrender them." She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. We are proud to have KrisAnne as a contributor to Americans United for Freedom.To send a check, please complete and print a contribution page form
and mail it with your donation to this address:
and mail it with your donation to this address:
Americans United for Freedom
PO Box 1310
Herndon, VA 20172
PO Box 1310
Herndon, VA 20172
I am shocked--SHOCKED--that you would consider someone using a technology unknown to the founders to be a member of the "press" as they knew it. Why, one would think you consider the Constitution a "living document" or something.
ReplyDeleteDoug, May I say, your comment is most confusing. Other than Liberal Judges who would say that the Constitution is a "living document?" In my mind only a rabid Liberal would assert that falacious claim. Pastor Lee
ReplyDeleteLee,
ReplyDeleteI was just poking fun (too obliquely, it seems) at a pundit who, I suspect, would never consciously invoke the concept of a "living Constitution" unknowingly, yet implicitly doing just that by claiming that the term "press" as used in the First Amendment encompasses a person doing things unimagined by the founders, i.e., using an "electronic" "computer" to "post" on a "blog" on the "internet" to be viewed and perhaps commented on by countless others with computers connected worldwide by wires and radio waves.