Supreme Court Preview of Holt v. Hobbs

Supreme Court Preview of Holt v. Hobbs: When in the Era of Extreme Religious Liberty Can State Prison Administrators Enforce Security Needs?

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear argument in the case of Holt v. Hobbs, in which a Muslim inmate in an Arkansas prison is arguing for the right under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to have a beard in violation of the prison’s rules. RLUIPA is the federal law that imposes on local and state governments the same standard as that imposed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) federal law, and which was at issue in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. To wit, a prison may not substantially burden an inmate’s free exercise of religion unless serving a compelling interest in the least restrictive means. The standard is one that was never applied to prisons before RFRA and RLUIPA appeared on the horizon in 1993 and 2000 respectively.

Currently, the Arkansas prison officials in this case permit ¼-inch beards for medical reasons (which likely means they must also for religious reasons under the First Amendment), but they have objected to Holt’s demands for a longer beard. The advocates for extreme religious liberty have heaped condescension on the prison authorities for their concerns. It’s just a ¼ inch, right?

But what is really at stake is how deeply involved federal courts will become in the micromanagement of state prisons and the nationalization of religious accommodation across all local, state, and federal prison systems. Not to mention how prisons are supposed to handle their most violent inmates with the federal courts looking over their shoulders.

The Prison Policy and the Jihadist Inmate

This prison policy, which is common among state prisons, was implemented for “health and hygiene”; to maintain a “standard appearance throughout . . . incarceration”; to “minimize opportunities for disguise”; and to “minimize opportunities for transport of contraband and weapons.” These are interests few could denigrate, unless they do not know how prisons operate or what prisoners are like.

The inmate in this case is a jihadist, who was indicted for threatening the lives of the daughters of Pres. George W. Bush, and was in prison for breaking into his ex-girlfriend’s home, slitting her throat, and stabbing her in the chest. While in prison, he was caught holding a knife to an inmate’s throat. In other words, he was violent inside and outside prison.

Eighteen states submitted the sole amicus brief in support of the prison, but in my view it is the brief the Justices and their clerks need to read the most closely. The federal courts are inclined to set a single standard across the country, but the states have warned the Court that when it comes to the fifty state and hundreds of municipal prisons, and the different demographics of the prison population across the country, one size does not fit all:

“Prison life is not civilian life, and federal judges are not equipped to weigh the unique security concerns and resource constraints faced by prison administrators. Staffing and funding levels vary, as do the physical layouts and disciplinary problems of each prison. Prison administrators are in the best position to craft the restrictions necessary to maintain health and safety in the unique context of each prison’s environment.”

The Supreme Court Precedent That Matters the Most

The legal debate revolves around dictum in the Court’s unanimous decision, Cutter v. Wilkinson, where the Court upheld RLUIPA’s prison provisions against a facial Establishment Clause attack. The unanimous opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was leavened with prescriptions to the federal courts to defer to prison administrators’ judgments on prison security. The Court relied upon the legislative history of RLUIPA: “Lawmakers anticipated . . . that courts entertaining complaints under §3 would accord ‘due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators.’” Later on, the decision noted that members of Congress “anticipated that courts would apply the Act’s standard with ‘due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources.’”

The Respondent prison embraces the dictum of Cutter, asking the Court to give due deference to the views of prison administrators on security, which decisions are made on a system-by-system basis in light of the inmate needs and demands in that system. The states’ amicus brief further argues, “It is the considered opinion of the amici States that Cutter’s deferential test appropriately balances the religious liberty of inmates with the unique institutional concerns of prison life. The Court should continue to ascribe ‘due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators.’” It only makes sense that beard length matters, because uniformity of appearance is necessary for guards to be able to identify the troublemakers from the rest. Moreover, it is a commonplace that inmates hide contraband wherever they can and prison systems struggled with the cost of having to visually check beards that are longer. They also rightly complain that federal courts should not be in the business of undermining prison security unless there is some massive statistical survey or study for each particular practice.

Holt, the Petitioner, insists that RLUIPA must be read solely according to its expansive terms, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s reading of RFRA’s terms in Hobby Lobby, and Cutter means little for this case. That means the prison must prove with specificity and preferably with studies and statistics that its beard-length policy is the least restrictive means for this inmate. It is not enough for prison administrators from Arkansas and 18 other states to aver that this is a needed security measure. The Petitioner also argues that if other prison systems would permit him to have his half-inch beard, then this one must, too: “At least 43 states and prison systems, several large municipal systems, and national accreditation standards would allow Petitioner’s beard.”

For the Petitioner, the cost of inmate-by-inmate beard inspections is a joke, and the overall cost of litigating RLUIPA claims inmate-by-inmate across all prison systems in the United States poses no concern at all. On the Petitioner’s view of the universe (and that of the many religious groups that filed amicus briefs in this case), the right to extreme religious liberty should come at any cost to the government (aka the taxpayers) and the federal courts properly oversee every particularized claim for religious accommodation in the United States, with a growing list of mandated accommodations across all prisons, regardless of the prison’s inmate population, budget, or religious makeup.

If Cutter cabined RLUIPA, as its dictum seems to indicate, and as Justice Ginsburg reiterated in her dissent to Hobby Lobby, the state should win this case, and the federal courts will not be in the business of micromanaging every accommodation in every prison. If the inmate wins this one, RLUIPA will reveal itself as the intense invasion of federalism it is, and the federal courts will need to adjust their dockets to free up time and resources to serve as super prison boards. Since Congress imposed RLUIPA on the prisons and the federal courts, it is only fair for it to appropriate more funding for the federal judiciary so as to accommodate all of the likely future demands for RLUIPA-engineered accommodations prisoner by prisoner.


California challenges Facebook argument on online teen privacy

March 21, 2014, 8:18 p.m.
Original article

SAN FRANCISCO — The Federal Trade Commission and California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris say that Facebook is misinterpreting how a children’s privacy law applies to teen privacy in a move that could undercut the giant social network in a federal court case in California.

Facebook users sued the company for using their images in ads on the service without their consent and later settled the class-action lawsuit in 2012.

Children’s advocates are challenging the settlement in an effort to require Facebook to get explicit permission from parents before using the personal information — as well as the images, likes and comments — of teens in advertising.

The advocates have asked the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the Facebook settlement. They say the settlement violates the law in seven states, including California, that require parents’ permission before a child’s image can be used in advertising.

Facebook argued that because the Children’s Online Privacy and Protect Act, known as COPPA, only protects kids 12 and under, that states cannot enforce their own laws on teen privacy.

In a court filing in June, Facebook said that because federal privacy protections don’t apply to teens their activities on the Internet “should not be subject to parental consent requirements, even under the auspices of state law.”

Both the FTC and the state attorney general filed amicus briefs with the 9th circuit, disputing that interpretation of the law.

The FTC said that Facebook’s position is “wrong and should be rejected.” The agency did not take a position on the case.

The state attorney general said “possible preemption of state law is of concern.”

“Protecting children’s information is of particular importance, because of their still-developing capacities and the potential for misuse of their information on their futures. The attorney general has developed numerous consumer privacy protection guides, including instructions for parents on how to protect their children’s privacy online,” the brief states.

A Facebook spokeswoman said the California attorney general and the FTC “are not challenging the fairness of the settlement, which is the sole question on appeal.”

“The court correctly found that the settlement was a fair and reasonable resolution of the claims in this case after fully considering these issues,” she said.

University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo said it was unclear what effect the FTC and the attorney general weighing in would have on the case.

“The FTC does enforce COPPA so courts are likely to listen to what it has to say,” Calo said. “But I don’t know if it’s enough to overturn a district court judge’s ruling.”

Hudson Kingston, lawyer for the Center for Digital Democracy and other privacy advocates who are challenging the settlement, said the reading of the law by regulators “undermines one of Facebook’s key arguments that it can get out of this case without first addressing its weak privacy protections for teens.”

This ought to be interesting, especially coming from California.

Bill of Rights


Part 10:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no 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.

We have a RIGHT to peaceably assemble with others, this is not in dispute.  We also have the RIGHT to petition our government for redressing our grievances; this also is not in dispute.  These articles are foundational to our right to gather as a people to tell those who govern us, by our consent, that they have done us a great disservice.  However, the US Supreme Court stated in a 1984 decision, “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.”  Seems a bit odd, don’t you think?  Our Founding Fathers fought over one of the grievances of just such a nature.  In-fact, it was not unheard of that if someone was considered such an upstart the British Crown would remove that person(s) to England for trial there, which created the impetus for the requirement of a jury of one’s peers in the Sixth Amendment.

Here is where things get interesting as I was reading the definition of the “Freedom of Speech” in Black’s Law Dictionary; I was referred to the “Fighting Words Doctrine.”  Who knew?  And clearly indicate that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment.  “These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”  Over the course of some 60-70 years the doctrine has been honed down to be more specific than ambiguous.  An interesting case in 1971 comes to bear with this aspect of the First Amendment:  “The Court further expanded its protection of offensive speech in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). Cohen was arrested and convicted for disturbing the peace after wearing a jacket bearing the words “F— the Draft.” The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, redefining fighting words as only those “personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reactions.” The Court reasoned that because Cohen’s statement was not an insult directed toward a particular individual, it could not be regulated as fighting words.”

Our Founding Fathers intended for our government to listen to us, since they had just shaken off the British who listened to no one but themselves.  And though the US Supreme Court has deigned it to not be a requirement of Government to answer the People, historically speaking, the people redressed their grievances with the King of England; two examples being the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Petition of Rights.  The colonists attempted to all things peacefully, over the course of a decade but the crown would not relent.  In those similar instances the people of England attempted peaceful solutions and then waged war on the crown.  The crown knew if he did not relent, it would have been sure death at the hands of his servants, hmmmmmm… The colonists followed a similar path and ended up booting the British forces out of the colonies!  On a side note, what the colonists were experiencing was far less intrusive than that of us in this present day.  People are still fighting in courts this very day, but the courts (for the most part) are siding with the government.

See also: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9,  Part 10

Works Cited

Alexander Hamilton, J. J. (1788). THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.

Andrews, J. (2001). Amendments to the US Constitution: Amendment I. In J. Andrews, Guide for Learning and Teaching the Declaration of Independance & US Constitution (p. 382). San Marcos, CA: Center for Teaching the Constitutiuon.

Butler, J. (n.d.). THE BEST OF CARL MILLER. Retrieved January 15, 2013, from MY PRIVATE AUDIO:; (PARTS 1, 2, & 3) (n.d.). What is the Fighting Words Doctrine? Retrieved January 1, 2014, from Freedom Forum:

Geiger, R. (2008, June 4). Background on the First Amendment. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from Oklahoma State University School of Media & Strategic Communications:

Justia. (1984, February 21). Minn. Bd. Commun. for Colleges v. Knight – 465 U.S. 271. Retrieved January 1, 2014, from JuUSTIA US Supreme Court:

Lockhart, W. B., Kamisar, Y., & Choper, J. H. (1970). THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION Cases and Materials. St. Paul: West Publishing.

Know Your Constitution – Carl Miller Parts 1 – 3 (abt. 1980). [Motion Picture].

Turner, B. (2011, January 18). The Tyranny Of The Supreme Court. Retrieved January 1, 2014, from American Patriot Commision blog:

Bill of Rights

Part 6:docs-003

We are all aware that we have Rights and Liberties, which are protected by the US Constitution.  We also know that the US Constitution is constantly being re-interpreted thereby abridging, modifying, and eroding our Rights and Liberties.  The questions are:  (1) Do you even know that is happening?  (2) Do you even care that it is happening? (3) Are you doing anything about it? (4) What can you do about it? AND at what point will you make a stand for your Rights and Liberties?

People have made their stand against the tyranny of government, elitism, and other forms of hatred toward the sovereignty of the individual over his, or her, government or the corporate lobbies which push the agenda they desire.  Unfortunately, many of our representatives give in to the temptation in order to attain re-electability for the next term.  It is up to We the People to take back our government from the politicians and take back the courts from the judges who choose to legislate from the benches throughout America.  But exactly, how far are you willing to go?  Are you willing to be jailed to protect the Rights of another individual as was mentioned in the last part?

States and the Government are constantly requiring you the individual to obtain a permit in order for you to do something.  Don’t you find that rather odd?  I do!  For you have absolute Rights, corporations and governments have privileges.  Let me clarify, you are the individual from whom (you and others) created the local and state governments and you gave them certain privileges to do things on your behalf (read the Declaration of Independence), the states in-turn created the federal government and we elected our representation to serve at our pleasure by caring for the day-to-day business of governmental dealing.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (Supreme Court trumps The U.S. Supreme Court and American flag. Washington, D.C., USA.everything else) Murdock is basically a religious test case. A religious group wanted to go out and preach among the public as that is their right to evangelize.  Pennsylvania wanted them to have a license to solicit.  The group claimed their first amendment right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to worship and exercise their religion unencumbered. The points on the case that are established are “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution; and that a flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the constitutional liberty of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress the exercise thereof.” That the ordinance is non-discriminatory, and that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the federal constitution, and exist independently of the state’s authority, the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return is irrelevant.  No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.

The first thing you need to understand is Article 6 paragraph 2 of the constitution. This is known as the supremacy clause of the constitution. Basically what it says is “This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made pursuance thereof, and the treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. The judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary are not withstanding in law.

Pissed-off-JudgeOne of the most important cases in American history is Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).  This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn’t exist in law.

rodneyNow, that is quite powerful to say the very least!  Most people do not study law or the Constitution.  With all due respect to all Americans, I believe it is high time that we started studying both again, taking all of the lessons to heart.  A little background for you so that you may relate to me.  I listened to many shows while at work trying to understand the Constitution, my Rights, and the law because I was interested in them.  Of course, when you learn something new, you want to share it all with your friends and so I did.  Then one day I received a ticket based upon an accusation.  First off, an officer of the law cannot write out a ticket based upon an accusation without proof, one person’s accusation is not proof; secondly, an Animal Control Officer is not an officer of the law, but is a corporate subcontractor of the county; then there is what the laws stated which were not violated, that which the Nebraska Supreme Court had stated on the subject and we cannot forget there was in the state statutes which stated, “No such ordinance or resolution shall place a duty or liability on any person, other than an employer, employment agency, or labor organization…”  Which in-turn says that the county makes laws applicable to the employers and labor organizations, not the people that reside within.  I wrote my own briefs and had a blast doing it and I learned quite a lot about the law.  Oh, let us not leave out the fact that my neighbors enjoyed the entertainment value.  Also, you elect one body to create laws within each state, and that is the legislature.  The counties are extensions of the state, but are empowered to govern the businesses within their borders.  I found that rather interesting, oh by the way they had to drop the case because they had nowhere to go with it.

Even though these court cases are specific to religion, taxation, politics, CaseDismissedetc. they are applicable to all situations.  You are required to think for yourself and determine how it applies.  Another thing you must keep in mind is the fact that when you obtain a lawyer to fight your battle you deem yourself to incompetent before the court, but if you fight your own battles you have greater leeway because most laws and rules within the courtroom are geared toward lawyers, you aren’t a lawyer, huh.

See also: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Works Cited

Butler, J. (n.d.). THE BEST OF CARL MILLER. Retrieved January 15, 2013, from MY PRIVATE AUDIO:; (PARTS 1, 2, & 3)

Geiger, R. (2008, June 4). Background on the First Amendment. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from Oklahoma State University School of Media & Strategic Communications:

Lockhart, W. B., Kamisar, Y., & Choper, J. H. (1970). THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION Cases and Materials. St. Paul: West Publishing.

Know Your Constitution – Carl Miller Parts 1 – 3 (abt. 1980). [Motion Picture].


Something for the Liberty Minded…

During some tweeting sessions I came across an interesting site, Learn Liberty – learn about the ideas of a free society (

It is quite interesting as it has a great number of videos, playlists, and opportunities.  It is much like a self-teaching academy of the ideologies of liberty, rights, economics, law, philosophy, politics, etc.  A go to spot for those who want to know, or research more of what they are getting themselves in for.

The world is at your fingertips, all you have to do is reach out and touch the keys of your computer and snatch from the plethora of fruit bearing sites out there to learn a little bit more.  Just as it is with any other form of learning, you need to learn, study, examine and decide for yourself what it is that you stand for…all of the tools are at your finger tips.  I hope you enjoy it as I am.

Jury Duty

Next week I am scheduled for jury duty.  I am rather excited about it, as I honestly believe that it is not just our civic duty to perform, but also our moral duty.  You may be wondering “moral duty?”  Yes!  So many people are hell bent on getting out of this obligation, because it is interfering in their lives; however, they fail to realize the purpose of this duty.  YOU are all that stands between a fellow citizen and jail, potentially a wrongful imprisonment.  This is a serious subject and MUST be deemed as such.  You are not the Prosecuting Attorney’s friend, nor are you the District Attorney’s friend; you are, in fact, the ally of the accused, because you can stop the improper use of the law and say to one and all…THIS IS WRONG AND I WON’T STAND FOR IT!

Why a JURY of your PEERS is is so vital to FREEDOM?  One day long ago a man rode into the small town of Culpeper, VA He was totally shocked by what he saw!  There, in the middle of the town square was a minister tied to a whipping post, his back laid bare and bloody with the bones of his ribs showing. He had been scourged like JESUS, with whips laced with metal.  The man turned to someone and asked what the man had done to deserve a beating such as this.  The reply given him was that the man being scourged was a minister who refused to take a license. He was one of twelve who were locked in jail because they refused to take a license to preach.  The time was March, 1775 and the man who viewed this travesty was none other than Patrick Henry and the incident was the basis for his “…GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!” speech.

On another occasion in history a Mr. Bushnell sat on the jury for a man who was placed on trial for violation of a “Conventicle Act.” This was an elaborate Act which made the Church of England the only legal church. The Act was struck down by the jury’s not guilty vote. Freedom of Religion was established and became part of the English Bill of Rights and later it became the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In addition, the Right to peaceful assembly was founded, and Freedom of Speech. Had Bushnell and his colleagues yielded to the guilty verdict sought by the judge and prosecutor, William Penn most likely would have been executed as he clearly broke the law.  The year was 1670 and the man on trial was William Penn.

As a member of the Jury you carry much weight and power, unfortunately people are more interested in going home to watch reruns of Friends or MacGyver, hmmmm!  The previous two stories are the basis for the Bill of Rights, more specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments

AMENDMENT VI (1791) to the US Constitution reads as:  “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”  This guarantees each of us the right to an impartial Jury, but so many of us forget that we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, not the other way around!

We are endowed with God-given, or inalienable, Rights.  They come from our creator; no one can take them from us and we cannot give them away without the ability to pick them back up and use them again.  Only YOUR creator can take them from you!  As a Juror you have an obligation to the accused to ensure and make certain that he, or she, gets a fair trial.  It is NOT your duty to make certain that every Tom, Dick, and Harry is found guilty of everything that the Prosecutor swings before you and says that he is guilty.  NEWS FLASH: Not every Policeman, District Attorney, Prosecutor, and Judge tells the truth – nor do they ensure that you know everything that you need in order to make that decision.

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.


“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration

“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1941

“The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge…” U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139. (1972)

And these are the Judges from the days of old speaking on the subject. During the Reconstruction Period of our history it was difficult at best to get justice for the previously known slaves and  ultimately impossible to find a white man guilty of murdering a previously know slave and that was when the Judges began to instruct the jury and essentially said that the jurors needed to listen to them.

The ultimate goal of the Communist belief is power and the Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, in my opinion, which teaches the citizens to give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the “common good,” but it always ends in a police state.  Just listen to the news and all of the things that YOUR government is implementing and how YOUR RIGHTS are being ebbed away by their law making and chiseling away at the Constitution.  This is considered preventive justice.  Control is the key concept. Read the ten tenets of communism carefully:

1. Abolition of private property.

2. Heavy progressive income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights on inheritance.

4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Central bank.

6. Government control of Communications & Transportation.

7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture.

8. Government control of labor.

9. Corporate farms, regional planning.

10. Government control of education.

As a juror you may have to make a decision that takes away someone’s rights, rights are equivalent to property.  Just think about it and consider these things when you are on a panel of jurors.  I would highly suggest you read and reread the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Citizen’s Rule Book (which has the founding documents in it).  It would serve you well to know your rights and the rights of your fellow citizens.



Files for your viewing pleasure:



Forms of Government Part1


A Republic form of Government is one that hinges upon several key concepts: Freedom, Individual Sovereignty, Common Law, and Rights over Privileges. This was the great American Experiment, because no such Republic was ever attempted on such a grand scale, only on a small scale. The basis of the Republican form of Government is that all men were endowed with unalienable, or inalienable, rights by their creator or by nature’s God. The representation elected has no power to vote concerning these endowed rights, nor can they limit or abridge them as they are the sovereigns (or Kings & Queens in their own right.) And “The People” consent to be governed by the created government. The limitations and requirements are generally laid out and set forth in a Constitution, which is essentially the road map that the government must follow.

Freedom as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary is:

  1. the quality or state of being free: as
  2. the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
  3. liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
  4. the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <;;freedom from care>;;
  5. ease, facility <;;spoke the language with freedom>;;
  6. the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <;;answered with freedom>;;
  7. improper familiarity
  8. boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use <;;gave him the freedom of their home>;;
  9. Another thought
    1. a political right
    2. franchise, privilege

I am free to do whatever I choose to do so long as it does not infringe upon your rights and freedoms. Just because something disagrees with you does not infringe on your rights because you can set the record straight by letting others know your opinion as well.

Sovereignty, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary is:

  1. obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it

2. a : supreme power especially over a body politic

b : freedom from external control : autonomy c : controlling influence

3. one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

Even the Black’s Law dictionary uses, or indicates, this definition.

The idea is if you study US history, the Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution, that the People are sovereign as it was “The People” who created the individual states, and the states thereby created the Federal Government. If that is so, we as Citizens of the United States have been lacking in our duties to protect our rights and liberties. As you listen to and read the news these days you are hearing that the Federal Government has enacted a law that limits a right; however, this is not permissible because your rights cannot be abridged, managed or governed by the elected Government! As “The People” are governed by their consent. Within the last year, or two, many states have asserted their power of sovereignty over the demands of the US Government by using the Tenth Amendment, which reads “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.” Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution ( states what the elected representatives can do (there are only about 18 items, or orders of business that they may tend to). Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution is a list of what our representatives cannot do. And what seems to astound me is they (the President, Senators, and Congress) take it upon themselves to pass a Law and use it to amend, abridge, and manage the rights of the Citizens, thereby usurping the Constitution and delegated authorities.

Rights over Privileges (defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary)

Right: something to which one has a just claim (and has no need of permission; my emphasis)

Privilege: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

YOUR unalienable rights are innumerable! Your rights are guaranteed and protected by the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution; you do not receive them because of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) are a short list of those rights which our Founding Fathers believed to be the most important but were shortened to the “…life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness…” However, the Ninth Amendment which says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”, which states that those rights not listed, are also guaranteed to “The People.” On the other hand, privileges are granted to you by those who create the law. Beware of the loss of your rights and protect them at all costs!

And finally, a republican form of government is guaranteed to ALL States to the Union (US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4; But is that truly the case?? Look around you; though it may seem you can do anything you desire to do…much you do is treated as a privilege, not a right.

What can you do? Become active in your community and be that protector of “The People’s” Rights and Liberties. Remember, the Rights and Liberties you don’t uphold for the least in our society are the same rights you let slip away for those who may be your daughter, son, granddaughter, grandson, etc…the list can go on. To remove God from our society and beliefs, you also remove the impetus from which your rights are derived.

Learn and study the History of the US, the founders, and the founding documents. Know your rights!