In my November-December editorial, "Clinton's Family Focus: A National Sunday Law" I dared myself to write an editorial for January entitled, "How Clinton Has Trashed the US Constitution." And, speaking of Sunday, the very first "trashing" of the Constitution was in 1892 on the eve of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus, the "Columbian Exposition": Congress passed a law stating the exposition would be closed on Sundays because Sunday was being declared the "Christian Sabbath." So much for NOT trying to establish a religion.
By Constitution I mean primarily the "Bill of Rights" part. Articles 1 through 9 relate mostly to the separation of powers between Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches, some of which, like blacks being 3/5 of a person and other spurious items, have already been dealth with in Amendments to the Bill of Rights. Further, by "Bill of Rights," I refer only to the first ten articles, not later amendments which gave us such wonders as income tax (Article 16), Prohibition (Article 18, repealed by Article 21), term limits (Article 22), and, wisely, abolition of slavery (Article 13) and voting rights for minorities, women and 18-20 year-olds (Articles 15, 19, 26, respectively).
And another thing: Am I wrong or paranoid or what, but doesn't it seem lately with all those Presidential Directives/Executive Orders recent presidents have issued that the so-called "Separation of Powers" has gone a bit by the wayside?
And now, on with the tirade... I will show below how Clinton has, either in word or in deed, thrown the US Constitution out the window.
First Amendment: 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.,br>
The religion part: For sure, Bill Clinton, who I believe goes to church just to be seen there, has not tried to establish a national religion (however, Gore--who if Clinton is found guilty during the impeachment trial and is kicked out--just might do something like this pending the US ratification of the UN Biodiversity Treaty which will establish a one-world religion headed by the WCC and New-Age/Aborigional in orientation as we are persuaded to worship Gaia/Mother Earth), but surely has prohibited the free exercise thereof. Pushing for a National Sunday Law, for one, which would hamper the rights of Jews, Seventh-day Adventists and others to follow Saturday (Biblical) Sabbath practices; Clinton-Reno's assault on the Branch Davidians; Clinton's backing of groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, who are working to eliminate Christian Identity and other supposedly unpopular groups. Now, as racist and odious as some of these groups are, they DO have a right to their beliefs (!) provided no harm is done (and, mostly, they seem to be harming themselves. If Pete Peters and the like have thrown any bombs at anyone lately, let me know).
Freedom of speech, press, assembly: Who could ever forget when Clinton went on MTV and said Americans have "too much freedom"? Or is it that he really gives a dangnabbit about our safety and security, and that "too much freedom" violates the same? He sure didn't care much about the Weaver's safety and security, or the Branch Davidians', where, in both cases, no harm was being done to anyone outside their particular groups, and it's debatable if any harm was done within these particular groups as well. And who could forget the time Clinton had a reporter harrassed and dispatched by Secret Service types for asking questions Clinton didn't like? As far as I know, such bullying had never occurred before. And, what about the safety and security of the fifty - sixty-odd individuals who have died under very dubious circumstances while being associates of Clinton? (See All the President's Men Meets Murder She Wrote in Nov.-Dec. issue) Finally, on the aftermath of OK City, who can forget Clinton's tirades against "right-wing extremist" talk show personalities, from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Reagan to Chuck Colson, all of whom are mainstream radio hosts who just happen to be politically incorrect from time to time (Imagine what he calls Bo Gritz, Chuck Harder, Sam Solomon etc.!), and his statements that they had "too much freedom"? Now, what do you suppose Clinton--if he lasts that long--would do when folks start getting upset at the onset of y2k? Does the expression "martial law" ring a bell? Don't believe me? Then read my article Y2K: Will Clinton Declare Martial Law? in this months OmegaZine!. Oh, and, does the 1994 Communications Assistance in Law Enforcement Act, where Clinton grants broader powers to law enforcement to wiretap cell phones and other digital equipment and are now given immediate access to communications lines, ring a bell? And, folks, do you really feel more "safe and secure"? Let us not forget 1 Thessalonians 5:3: "For when they shall say Peace and Safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them...and they shall not escape." It has been shown to me enough that it's apparent to me that Clinton's "safety and security" is only for himself and his power elite friends against us, the masses, the sheep.
As for redressing of grievances: Clinton, who is supposed to be so politically correct, doesn't always apply such principals when women are concerned (now, does ANY liberal man?), and you can ask Paula Jones, who, resulting from her sexual harrassment suit, was paid off with a million dollars, but then the money was taken back. In other words, Jones got nothing for her troubles except shame (typical for women, eh), nor was Clinton punished for it...nor did the feminists back Jones. Too politically incorrect, I guess. As for Lewinsky, no doubt she'll be laughing all the way to the bank on this one. On a more serious note,
Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I am NOT going to argue what is meant by the term "militia" here. The important part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which Clinton, with others, has put a major, and seemingly irrevocable, assault to. Brady One, Brady Two, etc. etc. etc. One can argue all day just what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means, but it seems to me that it means that responsible gun ownership/use is not only a right but also a necessity, no matter what Shumer, Feinstein, Kennedy and the rest of that socialist ilk says it means.
Third Amendment: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of was, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Now, this has never happened, you say? Again, ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians. And ask the sixty or so families of the Davis Mountains Resort, Fort Davis, Texas, during the so-called "Republic of Texas Standoff", some of whom were prevented from returning to their homes at the outset of the week-long ordeal; some of whom did indeed quarter soldiers, not necessarily with their will or permission. How do I know about this? Because I live in the Davis Mountains Resort, that's how.
Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Well, it seems the so-called drug war has done away with a lot of that. According to the Future of Freedom Foundation publication Freedom Daily, Vol. 7 No. 2, on so-called "no knock" laws, Clinton's Supreme Court has basically done away with this in their Wilson vs. Arkansas decision. However, Clinton has just signed a bill that would effectively wipe out this entire amendment, sponsored by our wonderful, if ignorant, House of Representatives. Read about it at FBI Wiretapping article. Although it effects "agents of foreign powers," don't think the nefarious FBI won't use it against domestic citizens as well. And who could forget that wonder of legislation after OK City, Clinton's 1995 Omnibus Counterterrorism Act, which grants sweeping powers to the Executive Branch, broader wiretapping authority with less judicial oversight, law enforcement access to personal and financial records without a warrant. For instance, according to this bill the president can designate which groups are terrorist, can seize the assests of the group and members and imprison supporters as well as deport alien members, neither of whom will be tried in court for reasons of "national security."
Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual services in the time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived or life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
The first part of this has been quashed due to the fact that our justice system is now under law of Admiralty Courts. I sound like one of those "right-wing extemists" eh? So how come all courtroom flags now have gold fringe on their flags, signifying that the court is an Admiralty Court? Thus, we no longer have common law courts, which the first part of that applies to. And, while it is true that Clinton, to my knowlegde, or his support system, has not violated the double jeopardy or self-incrimination clauses, the latter has been, especially in cases involving environmental regulations, where properties have been seized and /or condemned WITHOUT just compensation for violating "wetlands" laws. I've read articles about this kind of abuse in Reader's Digest and in local newspapers, and know of an individual in the Galveston area who ran an auto repair shop on a designated "wetland", was fined several hundred thousand dollars and local govt. had a bulletin board with his picture on it calling him an environmental criminal. The man is, by the way, paying off the fine. But not by the use of that property, seized without ANY compensation!
Sixth Amendment: 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 assistance of counsel for his defense.
Not if you violate the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act, you don't! Or in other instances Clinton might designate later or has designated.
Seventh Amendment: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.
What "common law"? That went by the wayside years ago. And, if you try to reinstitute it, a la Freemen, then you surely lose all your rights, period. As for trial by jury, if one has followed the legal system as we know it long enough, one knows any judge can nullify any jury. Okay, so all this comes before Clinton, as do violations of...
Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted.
Tell that to an IRS court. Again, Clinton alone can't be blamed for this.
Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, in exercising your rights don't deny others' rights. Clinton, then, in order to protect his "rights" cannot legislate against others' rights as he has been doing for the sake of "safety and security."
Tenth Amendment: 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.
Clinton hasn't violated this, you say? Then how come several States, foremost Colorado (Sponsored by legislator Charles Duke) have passed "Tenth Amendment" clauses in their own State Constitutions precisely during Clinton's Administration? It seems Clinton, more than any other president before him, has pushed upon the States a record number of "Unfunded Mandates" that get tacked on to "pork" bills when the states ask for federal handouts. An unfunded mandate is a law that tells the states that if they accept federal funds, they have to pay for certain other federal requirements that are otherwise "unfunded."
Okay, okay, okay. I can't just go after Slick Willie for this. It isn't mainly his fault.
Then whose fault is it that we are losing our rights for the sake of safety and security?
IT'S OUR FAULT! WE THE PEOPLE have allowed the powers-that-be, whether federal, state , or local, to take our rights away from us!
We the...sheep, being led to the slaughter?
Baa-aaa.
Deborah Lagarde, Editor, Omegazine!