The right of enjoying and defending our lives and liberties is found throughout our founding documents, as you can see “lives” born and unborn is placed first, and it is placed first and foremost for a reason. Its when these founding values become subjective, perverted and distorted we will have stepped on the slippery slope downward, we have already allowed our selves to step on to this slippery slope, now all of us must grasp what little remains and pull with all our might to get our selves out of this mess.
The intent of the First Amendment was the right of individual conscience, which must not be subverted and perverted in any way or form, and our form of government is deeply dependent on individual conscience. If this is lost then our form of government is lost, you would need a national police force to replace individual conscience, socialism.
These four State Constitutions are written before the United States Constitution and form the anti federalist foundation from which the United States Bill of Rights had originated from, thus establishes original intent of our laws. This was established law of the time, what the Bill of Rights was supposed to protect and if the Bill of Rights was not included in our United States Constitution these States (anti federalists) would not sign on.
A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia
“SEC. 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
“Article III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality…”
Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights
“XIV. That a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep a government free…”
North Carolina Declaration of Rights
“XXI. That a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary, to preserve the blessings of liberty.”
You will find additional information in each of these four State Constitutions, freedom of religion, press, the right to bear arm for personal protection, unreasonable search on to the independence of the Sates. The good order and preservation of civil government is essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality, a good Christian as written in these laws, that is why we are a Christian Nation and this is mostly missing from the conversations here. If this is lost the what do you think happens, what will replace it and if this is lost, will you care when it is too late?
The same is true with other Amendments, the Second Amendment prescribes common people soldiery, this includes our local police, the marshal system, an existing assemblage of each “able-bodied man” whom is in an armed force amongst the populace. If this is lost the you would need have a National Standing army, or a National Police Force, a socialized police force.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 29 wrote “To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.”
“We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all four of these pre-Second Amendment state constitutional provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes.” D.C v. Heller.
Sadly, all too many are off topic, they are blind to the warnings anti federalist founders or have forgotten them and in return, they feed the leviathan. I need to say this again – The socialist doctrine demands Statist ownership and control of distribution of wealth, creation and most importantly, individual conscience (religion). However, to do so it must destroy self governance, individual conscience, silence it by violent Populist Revolt, brute physical force, unchecked Populism of “Mob Rule” or the systematic destruction of the parts depending on the facet of socialist doctrine. This is where to fight and what to fight, no compromise, no sitting on the sidelines, no saying you don’t care, no thinking this is too divisive and no giving up, no mater how small or large it may be as we have lost too much already. Here is one of the ways to argue the debate over same sex marriage…
JUSTICE SCALIA, joined by CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST
and JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting: The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite. The constitutional amendment before us here is not the manifestation of a “‘bare . . . desire to harm’” homosexuals, . . ., but is rather a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are not only unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced (hence the opinion’s heavy reliance upon principles of righteousness rather than judicial holdings); they have been specifically approved by the Congress of the United States and by this Court. In holding that homosexuality cannot be singled out for disfavorable treatment, the Court contradicts a decision, unchallenged here, pronounced only 10 years ago, see Bowers v. Hardwick, . . ., and places the prestige of this institution behind the proposition that opposition to homosexuality is as reprehensible as racial or religious bias. Whether it is or not is precisely the cultural debate that gave rise to the Colorado constitutional amendment (and to the preferential laws against which the amendment was directed). Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject, it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions. This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that “animosity” toward homosexuality, . . . is evil. I vigorously dissent…
ROMER V. EVANS
517 U.S. 620; 134 L. Ed. 2d 855; 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996)
This affects everyone, a “politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws” – your own relationship with God will be affected – “constitutional doctrine, normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions” will be perverted and bastardized. Some have this “culture war” all wrong, it is about preserving our traditional mores, if we want to call it a sin without animosity then so be it. Of those that call our traditional mores an offense, change our laws against us with animosity then they should not be given any quarter.