Bill of Rights

debate_Constitution

Part 11

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.

If you truly wish to understand the First Amendment, you would be wise to study/read the Federalist Papers, writings of the individual founding fathers, and the Debates on the Constitution, and of course the letters sent by each of the founders to others (even though this may be considered part of their writings, I view them as personal correspondence.)

There is a wide array of information, books, web-sites, articles, etc. concerning the founders and their intention.  Me personally, I am both an Originalist and a Textualist…I believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights live on with the original meaning that the founder’s intended and can be used in all governmental circumstances; also, I believe the founders wrote exactly what their intentions were in word form and can be gleaned from the text we presently have before us.  I do not believe it to be a “living document” that is breathed new meaning with the advent of a new generation.  You may not like the right that someone has, but guess what…not everyone likes the rights you are exercising! 

debate1I leave you with this quote:

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” ~Voltaire

 

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

Advertisements

Bill of Rights

freedom-of-speech

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: http://www.myprivateaudio.com/CARLTEXT.pdf; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-zHrNPfkQ (PARTS 1, 2, & 3)

freedomforum.org. (n.d.). What is the Fighting Words Doctrine? Retrieved January 1, 2014, from Freedom Forum: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

Geiger, R. (2008, June 4). Background on the First Amendment. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from Oklahoma State University School of Media & Strategic Communications: http://journalism.okstate.edu/faculty/jsenat/foioklahoma/educationlessons/Background_on_First_Amendment.pdf

Justia. (1984, February 21). Minn. Bd. Commun. for Colleges v. Knight – 465 U.S. 271. Retrieved January 1, 2014, from JuUSTIA US Supreme Court: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/465/271/

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: http://americanpatriotscommission.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/the-tyranny-of-the-supreme-court/

Bill of Rights

assy2

Part 9:

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.

Did you ever wonder why the “Occupy Movement” was neither sanctioned, nor jailed (i.e., though they may have been arrested, they were released by the Judge with the charges being dropped not at the behest of the District Attorney, either) it was because it is our fundamental right and liberty to exercise.  Especially, when done on-the-fly and without any preplanning as if it were by a corporate mindset. 

assy3

The right of assembly was first tested by the Supreme Court in 1876, in United States v. Cruikshank. The defendants in the case had been indicted under the Enforcement Act of 1870, which prohibited any act to “intimidate any other person from freely exercising and enjoying any right or privilege granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States”.  While the indictment could not be upheld, the court declared, “’The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances.” (United States v. Cruikshank, 1876) [1]

In the precedent setting 1937 Supreme Court case De Jonge v. State of Oregon, Dirk De Jonge had been convicted for teaching communist doctrine to a gathering of 300 people .The Court reversed his conviction, observing that “the right to peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.”  In other words, said the court, you can’t deny the the right to assemble “ without violating those fundamental principles which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions.” More profoundly, the court ruled that “the holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed.””[2]

“Peaceable” remains the operative word. The First Amendment protects peaceful, not violent, assembly, although there must be a “clear and present danger” or an “imminent incitement of lawlessness” in order for government to restrict assembly rights.  Generally, though, the Supreme Court maintains that it is imperative to protect the right to peaceful assembly, even for those with whose speech many may disagree, such as Ku Klux Klan (KKK) gatherings, which many perceive as hateful, ruling (in National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 1977) that “it is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear.” [3]

assy1

The rights of Free Speech and Assembly are protected rights and liberties we all possess; however, they do not protect us from being offended by the purpose the Assembly and Speech being exercised.  The so-called Hate Laws are, in-fact, unconstitutional if you think long and hard on them, because they hinder us from saying what we desire to say and for the “Political Correctness” of the day which forces you to be tolerant of others and permits one side to be intolerant.  In essence, “Political Correctness” forces us to allow intolerance to be practiced and exercised against one group and prevents their exercising their rights, in a peaceable manner, toward the originating group.

You may consider bullying, in a sense, to be similar.  How often have you heard of a child being bullied to the point they couldn’t take it any longer and finally stood up for themselves?  And how many of them were suspended and expelled for none other than “Bullying”?  Seems a bit ironic and ludicrous, but happens much more often than you may think.  I have heard of a few occurrences here in my home area and at least 5 times, or more, nationwide.

People are becoming so fed up with the business-as-usual politicians, which created the vacuum to create the Tea Party movement.  The Tea Party is made up of Conservative Republicans with a Libertarian and Constitutionalist twist, who have found that the Republican Party had left them in spirit, heart, soul and principle.  Myself, I left long ago when I felt they left their roots and instead of standing on principle when they should have, the negotiated (and vise versa.)

Tyranny-400x291

HOW DOES TYRANNY BEGIN?  WHY ARE THERE SO MANY LAWS?

Heroes are men of glory who are so honored because of some heroic deed. People often out of gratitude yield allegiance to them. Honor and allegiance are nice words for power!  Power and allegiance can only be held rightfully by trust as a result of continued character.  When people acting in the name of government violate ethics, they break trust with “WE THE PEOPLE.” The natural result is for “WE THE PEOPLE” to pull back power (honor and allegiance).  The loss of power creates fear for those losing the power. Fearing the loss of power, people acting in the name of government often seek to regain or at least hold their power. Hence, to legitimatize their quest for control, laws and force are often instituted.  Unchecked power is the foundation of tyranny.

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

Works

1.      http://suite101.com/a/understanding-freedom-of-assembly-a66325 “Early Challenges

2.      http://suite101.com/a/understanding-freedom-of-assembly-a66325 “Early History of Freedom of Assembly”

3.      http://suite101.com/a/understanding-freedom-of-assembly-a66325 “Peaceful Assembly Protection for All”

 

Part 8:

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.

Image

Here is a very telling part of this Amendment, speech and press.  Both are protected, excepting under certain reasons such as yelling fire in a crowded theatre, that I find very reasonable; however, I recently read where a man was arrested and charged with felonies for holding signage protesting the Federal Reserve, I believe on the east coast around Maryland.  (The sign read something to the effect, “GIVE A MAN A GUN AND HE CAN ROB A BANK, GIVE THE MAN A BANK AND HE CAN ROB THE WORLD.”)  One felony count was for Terroristic Threats and the other for Bank Robbery, hmmmmmmmmm?  Another recent problem was a Florida Sheriff being relieved of his duties for letting someone go for possession of a firearm without a permit; the sheriff checked him out and let him go as it should be.  The sheriff’s deputy who started the whole mess was disgruntled because he had several complaints against him and was being investigated.  I just read either today or yesterday that the sheriff was placed back in to his job.  BRAVO!  There are many other incidents where many Police are threatening people with felony arrest for recording them, despite the fact that many courts have struck down such arguments.  The Glick case being won on appeal and was in the words of the Judge that recording public servants is “ancillary to the First Amendment”.

Image

ANY HOOO…

Take a look at all of the laws that are cropping up, lately.  I believe it was one of the California Senators that brought before the Senate a bill to “clarify” who is and who is not “PRESS”.  Unfortunately, our representation (yes, most of them) do little to nothing to protect your rights, or support & defend the Constitution, that piece of paper they took an oath to do so!  The writing is very simplistic and very straight forward…and very understandable!  To amend people’s rights through Laws is both unconscionable and unconstitutional, but as mentioned sometime ago our rights or the limitation placed on the government are not negotiable. 

Once you speak something, it is spoken; provided you did not slander or libel someone, or cause them specific harm (aside from the fact that it was true) you should be safe, but with the caveat that you are responsible for what your actions.  Once written, it is considered press and it should not matter that you are not a member of a specific news agency…once written, it is written, same rules should apply to speech should apply here.  With blogging being as in your face as it is, it seems to be the new generation of information.  And at times more up to date and fact specific than the lame-street-media!  The media, or Press (using rather loosely), have pretty much, in my opinion, abdicated their responsibilities and the people are as tired of them as they are of their government.  The people are slowly picking up the gauntlet in order to fight the battle of the Press with useful information, instead of political rhetoric, tripe, and propaganda.

Each of us needs to protect the Constitution, what it stands for, and the Bill of Rights (or Limitations on Government), God knows that it will not protect themselves!  And some of these lawyers and judges should just be activists outside of their profession NOT in the Courtrooms of America!

Image

 

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

Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights

Image

Part 7:

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.

It seems as though every time you turn around, someone, somewhere is being denied or hindered in their ability to exercise their religion, freely.  (i.e., students being denied the ability to create a bible study group on school grounds; a church or religious group being denied the 501(c)(3) tax exempt status designation; etc.)

Students, at the high school level, are usually minors and have limited rights; however, they do have the right to freely express themselves (under many circumstances) and have the right to endeavor in a religious activity.  Consider what is happening right now during the shutdown of the Government…Chaplains have essentially been told they cannot have services for the troops and risk an Article 15 for disobeying an order if they do so.  Odd, despite the rank they hold in the military service they are there to aid and bolster the moral and welfare of the service men and women.  Even though they are in the military, they have certain rights and their religious belief and expression happens to be one of them.

A church, on the other hand, does not have to be a corporation. Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”  Since the Christ was equated to the head of the church, there is no need for a physical building, because of the statement by Jesus in Matthew 18:20.  However, when a church becomes a corporation, it loses some flexibility and rights.  A corporation is a fiction of either the federal or state government and therefore is bound by many laws that a constitutional church is not obligated to uphold.  A corporate church, regardless if you believe it or not, if asked for any list of people that attend are required to comply, because they can say it is a fiction of the state and that is a privilege and they refused our request; hence, they loses their corporate status.  A constitutional church made up of the people still possess the rights to donate with tax write-off , but more importantly are not obligated to yield that same information if requested.  Although, most churches are corporations are so for legal protections, others are so to protect their wealth.  All rights within the first 10 Amendments of the US Constitution are individual, not collective.  A constitutional church is a group of individuals exercising their right of freedom of religion under the First Amendment protections.

Many people are under the misunderstanding that the United States was created as a Christian Nation.  Make no mistake about it; the colonies were created due to the religious persecution of the people in England.  However, this nation was created with the idea that the leadership could freely express their religions, not necessarily Christianity.  The majority of the Congress and leadership were either Deists or Masons.  The best way to make my point would be one of the initial treaties of the United States, the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797,:

Article 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I believe, foundationally, we are a Christian nation; however, if we were to be a strict Christian nation we would be creating a nation as that which we left…one which demanded you change your religion when the head of state decides he wants to change the religion, or worse yet, becoming a theocracy!

Thomas Jefferson once stated:  

“I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another’s creed. I am satisfied that yours must be an excellent religion to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness. For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be judged.”

 

I, for one, agree that it is our life’s work, speech, and actions that our religious tenets can be gleaned.  It is this freedom that makes our Country so great!

Sorry it took so long, I intended to get this out last week.

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

The Hidden Faith of The Founding Fathers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU24fJ4NQxo)

The Bill of Rights

Part 2

…the first official act of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident***.”  While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.” 

– US Supreme Court, majority opinion; Gulf, Colorado & Sante Fe Railroad Co. v Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 159-160 (1897)

This sets the tone for the beginning of these United States and I promise not to digress too far from the subject matter.  As a unified people the Declaration of Independence was the first legal act of this country to the world thereby separating the ties that bound us to the English Empire forever.

Now, I understand the Supreme Court had ruled in the case of Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) that The Federalist Papers, was the exact record of the intent of the framers of the constitution Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. I have also seen references, in many instances where the Anti-Federalist Papers were also given much weight in court cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.  So obviously being able to read their published thoughts as they were doing this constitution is very forceful in terms of constitutional interpretation. The intent of the lawmaker is the law. And it shall be liberally enforced in favor of you; you are the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.  Everything you can do to enhance your position in terms of how your lawmakers thought when the framed this constitution clearly makes your case even stronger for the constitution to be interpreted in favor of you. So, it is recommend you get a copy of The Federalist Papers and read it.  That being said, you also need to research the Debates concerning the creation of the Constitution, which would also be considered the mind of the Founding Fathers.

How, you may ask, do either of these two relate to the Bill of Rights?  First of all, the Declaration of Independence set the tone for these United States and for every legal act thereafter.  Secondly, the Supreme Court of the United States tells us that the Federalist Papers (written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay) are the basis of the Founding Fathers decisions and mind with respect to the United States Constitution, with respect to the Cohens case.  And through deduction we can also extrapolate the messages from the Anti-Federalist Papers (written or inspired by Thomas Jefferson, George Clinton, Robert Yates, Samuel Bryan, Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, Mercy Otis Warren, & Patrick Henry) as also being the mind and basis of the decisions of our Founding Fathers.

In Federalist Pater #84, Alexander Hamilton was attempting to influence the American People that there was no need for a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution because the rights of man were retained by him if not specifically given to the state or the federal government.  Hamilton stated in this paper, The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: “To bereave a man of life, [say she] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls “the BULWARK of the British Constitution.”  Despite the old English in which it is written you can discern from it its meaning and if you consider the present day events of our Legislature you can see that he was completely off point.  The reason I say he was completely off point is just consider the USA PATRIOT ACT (which was the start of the indefinite detentions); consider the Japanese-American camps during WWII in which American citizens were cast and thereby lost all that they owned and this was by one of our beloved Presidents (FDR); the JOHN WARNER DEFENSE ACT in which our Fourth and Fifth Amendment protected and secured RIGHTS were gutted and do not forget the one hundred twenty five year old Possee Comitatus Act of 1878 which said military forces could not act on American soil as it was not constitutional for them to do so.  Despite all that Hamilton spoke within that paper it only took 236 years to steal the rights away from America’s Citizens.  You can also pinpoint some Constitutional violations as early as George Washington with the quashing of the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791, or John Adams with the Alien and Seditions Act of 1796.

I, for one, am of the belief that there are no reasonable restrictions on a man’s God given rights other than, perhaps, if one’s exercise of rights would denigrate the rights of another in an illegal and unconscionable way.  There have been a great number of Supreme Court cases which either strengthened the Citizen’s rights or degraded them.  There are two minds in the Supreme Court of the United States that you need to be aware of: One is the “Originalist” and the other is the “Living Document”.  Each mind has valid points; however, I am of the mind that should be an Originalist, which means you possess the ideological mindset to determine the mind and meaning of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.  Those with the Living Document mindset believe that the Constitution is a living breathing document and its meaning changes upon the whims of society and with the times…this mindset is dangerous to the Rights and Liberties of every American, in my opinion; one day you have a specific Right and the next, based upon the whims of society, you no longer have that right.  Consider the above paragraph where you possess the Right of Habeas Corpus written within the text of the Constitution, but President Lincoln through extra-constitutional means suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus.  This was a duty of the Congress in Article I, section 9.  You will note throughout our history that Presidents have time and again overstepped their boundaries with respect to their duties and responsibilities and those of another branch of government.  This is more noticeable in more recent days with the information technology available to us.

More to come…

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

Works Cited

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

Butler, J. (n.d.). THE BEST OF CARL MILLER. Retrieved January 15, 2013, from MY PRIVATE AUDIO: http://www.myprivateaudio.com/CARLTEXT.pdf; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-zHrNPfkQ (PARTS 1, 2, & 3)

LII. (n.d.). 18 USC § 1385 – Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus. Retrieved January 15, 2013, from Legal Information Institute: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385

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

On the Constitutional Side…

14th Amendment

14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment Part 6

I find it very odd that a President of these United States and a supposed Constitutional Professor and Scholar is being urged by his party members to increase the debt ceiling, further debasing the American economy and the value of the US Dollar, to use this Fourteenth Amendment; more specifically section 4 which states:

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

This amendment was NOT intended for the future Presidents to raise the debt ceiling for it was Jefferson who eloquently stated:

“We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.  We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.  If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds…[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers…And this is the tendency of all human governments.  A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]…till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery…And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt.  Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”

This section is simply the acknowledgement of Public Debt accrued due to the Civil War, the War Between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression.   Just as any Citizen should do, the Government also should acknowledge its debts.  It even specifically states within it that any debt accrued for the purposes of insurrection or rebellion will not be acknowledged or paid by any state or the United States.

I, for the life of me, cannot determine where these people get the impression that they can increase the debt ceiling by circumventing the US Congress, who possesses the reigns of the public purse.  This, in my opinion, is a blatant act of tyranny and another usurpation of authority that one branch of government does not possess.  This is quite sad and a sad day in general!  History repeats, similarly when FDR created many of the unconstitutional acts and were deemed to be so by the US Supreme Court.  Another unfortunate period in history where FDR threatened to pack the courts and then all of a sudden the courts began seeing those unconstitutional acts to be constitutional…just like waving a wand of power, hmmmmmm.

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