Share-cropping became common in the United States after the Civil War. Back then, many Southern plantations had ample land, but little money to pay wages. At the same time, a large segment of the population was left impoverished, with little prospect of earning an adequate living. So, it was little surprise that the landed people -- those with the means of producing a product -- contracted with the poor, who had labor to offer, to produce a product from which both might profit.

Share-croppers normally received a home, the necessary tools, farm animals, and sometimes even some education, for their labor. They also received a share in the profit -- usually, about half -- from the fruits of their labor.

This arrangement was somewhat similar to the arrangement of the serfs of England. Both groups were tied to the land owner. Both paid half of the product of their labor for the privilege of living and working on the land. And, with both, the amount of freedom allowed to the workers by the landowners was often quite arbitrary.

Usually, the land owner told them what they will do, how they are to do it and when they were expected to do it. For instance, the land owners wished to insure that everyone in the family would be available to work the fields during the growing season. To that end, they even suspended education every summer.

Today, few of us work the fields. Yet, are we less of a share-cropper? Clearly, half of all the proceeds of our labor is still paid to the ultimate landowner, the government. Unlike serfs or share-croppers, we must now purchase the land on which we live. Yet, the ultimate landowner -- the government -- still instructs us on what we may or may not do with that land.

There was a time in our common law when it was taught that "Every man's house is his castle; and even though the winds of heaven may blow through it, the King may not enter." That was, of course, to include the sheriff, the tax collector, and all other police officers, too. However, the Lords and Ladies of Congress did not find this common law maxim expedient to the expressed goals of modern government. Consequently, they created ways to totally trash the concept.

Not to be outdone by the original land-barons of old, today's government has decreed "servient estate" over our property to itself. That is, federal, state and local governments have passed laws allowing government agents easement to our private property. Consequently, not only can today's government place restrictions on the use of private property, government agents may now search and seize private property, almost at will.

You think not? Violate some incomprehensible wetland law and the Army (Corps of Engineers) comes after you. Forget to pay property tax, or what the IRS says you owe, and men with guns come to run you off your land. And, God forbid some farmer would grow a crop that is not politically correct. . . .

A court trial is no longer usually necessary to confiscate private property. But, even if there is cause for trial, first you must relinquish possession of your property to the applicable government agency. Then, you may go to trial.

Adding insult to injury, the Supreme Court recently approved government's taking of private property by saying that forfeiture was different than punishment. This opinion gave police, and most other government agencies, cart blanche to confiscate private property for a whole host of reasons. And they do. There is great incentive for government agencies to confiscate private property. By law, they then use the proceeds from selling forfeited property to supplement the agency's budget.

So, too, with the concept of privacy. Like the land owner of old, today's government keeps very good records on its citizens. Hundreds of citizen databases exist throughout the country, containing everything from education, criminal and medical to financial records. Worse, all of these databases will soon be connected, allowing any bureaucrat to instantly compile a complete dossier on any American citizen.

Today's government schools no longer teach much about the relationship between the European serf and Master. Nor do they teach much about the tenuous relationship between the Southern share-croppers and land owners. Perhaps there is good reason for that.

Remember Checkpoint Charlie? That was the famous "gate" that separated West and East -- free and communist -- Berlin until the Berlin wall came down. It wasn't a happy place, to say the least. A person could get themselves arrested there if they did not have their papers in order. Or, if one tried to sneak through, in either direction, they could easily be shot dead.

That checkpoint was propagandized throughout the world as a prime example of a totalitarian government run amuck. So, why do we allow somewhat similar checkpoints here in the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Members of Congress fly commercial aircraft a lot. They therefore have a personal interest in assuring they will not be inconvenienced in any way while traveling. A bad guy could get on one of their flights and maybe "do" something, they felt. So, they tried to fix it.

Nowadays, every commercial air passenger must submit to a search and provide government documents proving who they are. Carry a little extra cash, and the traveler is subject to arrest and the cash confiscated. Carry a personal weapon for self defense, and go directly to jail. Enter an aircraft without properly identifying yourself and men with guns come to take you away. And, if you do not leave willingly, you will be shot.

Roadblocks around the country are like that, too. Any police officer can set up a roadblock anywhere they wish. Police may now stop travelers for any reason or for no reason. Americans must stop, show their papers and answer questions. To not stop means instant arrest. Actively protest the arrest and one could be shot.

There is even a type of checkpoint for seeking employment nowadays. Employers must now act as police. That is, they are to properly question potential employees, check their government provided documents, and then contact the central government to see if the potential employee is government approved to hold a job in the United States.

That came about, of course, because of the negligence of the central government. Our country's borders have major holes through which thousands of illegal aliens walk daily. The central government found it easier to bother all Americans with presenting documentation than to protect our borders. Conversely, instead of allowing the illegal aliens to earn a living, the central government gives them free medical treatment, education and welfare -- at the expense of all legal American citizens.

Now we are to have yet another set of official identification numbers and government issued documents for medical treatment. As with commercial aircraft traveling and motoring down the highway, government will also set up checkpoints and impede the flow of treatment traffic. Already, the central government restricts the ability of senior citizens on Social Security to spend their own money for medical treatment. Seniors who violate this rule can have their assets "forfeited" and will probably be jailed -- and if they protest this violation of freedom too adamantly, can get themselves shot to death.

Liberty, as defined in law by Blackstone in the "Commentaries on the Law," is "the power of locomotion, of changing situation, of moving one's person to whatever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by course of law." We find this right protected, to a limited extent, within the body of our Constitution, and further guaranteed within the Bill of Rights. Except for emergencies, government has no authority to violate liberty.

Our rights to life, liberty and property are said to be "unalienable" rights. That is, they are absolute rights and are incapable of being given up, taken away, or transferred to another. That's what the Founding Fathers intended, anyway. (For more on this, visit the first section of the text posted at:

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/state98.htm>

Yet, we Americans sit by quietly as our freedoms, rights and liberties are snatched one by one by the central government. Apparently, many Americans truly believe that the expediency of government agents really does supersede the freedom of the people. As long as the sports games are played on schedule and there's food in the refrigerator we don't seem to notice our rights evaporating.

Soon our driver's licenses, Social Security tax number, government approved medical treatment authority & identification, credit cards, and work permits will be on one central government provided internal passport. That will make it most convenient for bureaucrats. For any real or suspected violation of any law rule or regulation, they will then have the ability to instantly cancel most human functions with one change of their computer's database.

Checkpoint Charley was little more than an historical photo opportunity on the road to totalitarianism. Congress is giving modern bureaucrats in the United States potential for the real thing.

Do you have your papers in order?

What do you do when the people working for you refuse to follow their job description and then lie about it? You have that problem now you know. We all do. Our public servants are disobedient.

Pick any part of the Constitution -- the very first line, for example: "All legislative Powers shall be vested in a Congress. . . ." There is nothing very difficult to understand about that statement. "All" means every bit. "Legislative Powers" means to make law. And "shall" means that is how it is to be done.

Written another way, Congress shall make all law. In this case, "law" being that body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority.

It would be a violation of the very first sentence of our Constitution, then, if any department of government other than Congress promulgates "rules and principles" which are "enforced by a political authority" over the people of the United States. Yet all of the regulatory agencies regularly pass rules and regulations having the full force of law. Even the president sometimes makes law via executive order.

Do we believe in our Constitutional way of government, or shall we continue to stand by silently and accept willful disobedience by our public servants?

The Social-Democrats among us would have us believe that our Constitution is a living document, that the meaning of the words change with circumstances over time, and that a strict interpretation would be overly restrictive to government. Last week, while substituting for Rush Limbaugh on the radio, Professor of Economics Walter Williams cut right through that baloney with one short sentence: "How would you like to play poker with living rules?"

Our Constitution is a contract between the States and the federal government. It was approved by the people, through the sovereign States for those purposes, and only those purposes, set down in the contract. We call those purposes "enumerated" powers. But they are also contractual duties.

Two of the most important functions of the federal government are to protect the integrity of the nation as a whole and the rights of the American people. The Preamble to the Constitution even mentions these functions: "provide for the common defence" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

One of the duties of the federal government, then, is to guard our borders against invasion. Yet, each day thousands of foreigners are allowed to sneak into the United States. Some states now have millions of illegal foreign residents, but the federal government does nothing to round them up and send them back. Instead of protecting our borders, and keeping out illegal aliens, the federal government placed tracking restrictions on all American citizens that are both obnoxious and unconstitutional. This is total disobedience of both the written word and the intent of the Constitution.

Another problem is the tons of illegal drugs freely entering the United States from other countries. The federal budget allocations for drug interdiction dropped from 33 percent to 12 percent of the total illegal drug fighting budget under the Clinton Administration. As interdiction decreased, the street price of illegal drugs decreased and illegal drug use by teenagers drastically increased.

Yet, instead of halting the flow of illegal drugs into our country and drying up the market, the federal government imposed hundreds of unconstitutional and oppressive laws, rules and regulations on law-abiding American people. This, too, is disobedience to both the words and intent of our Constitution.

Today, there are over 170,000 federal bureaucrats spending over $17-billion a year. Their only function in life is to control the actions of the American people. The demands of this regulatory bureaucracy currently cost the average American family approximately $7,000 a year in stealth taxes. Yet, few if any of the activities regulated by the federal regulatory bureaucracy are authorized to the federal government by the Constitution. Again, willful disobedience.

The First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law" regarding religion, speech, press, assembly, or to petition government. Yet, the federal government disobeyed the Constitution and passed laws restricting everything except the press. The Second Amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The federal government disobeyed that, too, by passing dozens of restrictions on personal arms.

The Fourth Amendment, protecting our right to privacy and to be secure in our "persons, homes, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," has been totally trashed in recent years. The director of the FBI even wants legislation passed prohibiting Americans from putting an envelope (encryption) on their personal e-mail messages. Forfeiture and warrantless searches are total disobedience to the Constitution. Yet, we Americans are learning to accept this unconstitutional behavior by public servants as normal.

It's time we the sovereign citizens of these United States join together to exert our rightful position over these wayward public servants. Because, if we fail in correcting these ills in government, we will be committing a major disservice to our grandchildren: committing them to living their lives in what is quickly developing into a highly regulated dictatorship.

There has sure been a lot of hubbub about Second Amendment rights lately. We added a little to the fray too, of course. But we shouldn't have. All we did was to pile misinformation on top of more hackneyed misinformation. In other words, we were (partially) wrong.

Here's a quick question for all you Constitutional scholars: Which of the enumerated powers authorized to the federal government are described in the Bill of Rights? None, of course. All powers (except tax and alcohol) given the federal government by the Constitution of the United States are listed in the body of the Constitution. The Second Amendment, then, is something else.

When we have a doubt of the exact meaning of sections of the Constitution, the Supreme Court instructs that we should look to The Federalist Papers for clarification. In Cohens v. Virginia the Court said: "Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank [as a complete commentary on the Constitution], and the part its authors performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed." Since then, the Federalist Papers have been quoted liberally as an authority in many Court opinions.

In The Federalist #84, Alexander Hamilton gives his opinion on why a Bill of Rights was not really needed:

"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. For 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?"

Indeed. Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? And, there is no power to regulate private firearms.

Yet, many people wanted this declaration of rights added to the Constitution. The promise to do so was made so as to get the Constitution ratified. And the rest is history.

It is also enlightening to read what the Representative from Virginia, James Madison, said to the first House of Representatives as he proposed the Bill of Rights. Here is part of that speech:

"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government; and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government."

Got that? "The people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest." Later, he says that, "all [powers] that are not granted by the constitution are retained" by the people.

If the federal government had the power to regulate personal firearms, it would be one of the powers listed in the body of the Constitution, not in the Bill of Rights. And, since there is no such power granted, the right to keep and bear arms completely and unequivocally belongs to the people. Personal arms may, however, be regulated by State government.

The Second Amendment, then, is no more than a declaration that that people already have the right to keep and bear arms.

So, what would the Founding Fathers say about the abuse of power by the federal government to grab guns? Alexander Hamilton gives us a pretty good idea in The Federalist No. 78:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

One other little point: State governments gave up a few powers when the country was formed. But, the American people did not give up any of their rights. Were the people asked to sacrifice liberty, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 1996 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron212X.htm. Revised 12-31-00. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.