This week, the Bill of Rights becomes 213 years old. These 461 words were intended to be the backbone for defense of what the Founding Fathers called our "unalienable" rights. And so they were, with only few exceptions, for over 140 years.

Starting with the blatant and unconstitutional socialism of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, Washington has steadily eroded our rights. So, today, many of these so called "unalienable" rights are but privileges allowed or refused at the whim of a capricious central government, and some have been all but completely usurped by Washington.

Yet, these Amendments are still part of the Constitution. Therefore, they are still officially the basis for our rule of law. Which means, they legally may not be violated by any president, legislator or judge without first amending the Constitution.

Well, that is what was intended, anyway. That is our Constitutional law. The problem, therefore, is to decide what means shall be used to force the central government to behave and obey the Constitution. We the People, after all, were intended to be the sovereigns in this arrangement. Government officials are, believe it or not, but public servants. Our employees.

While we consider appropriate methods for recouping our unalienable rights, we must also recognize the prize for which we are reaching: Freedom and Liberty. The words of our Bill of Rights were designed to be read and understood literally. These Amendments are not part of a wish list. They are, officially, the law of the land -- restrictions all government officials must be ordered to obey.

On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendments, two of which, having to do with Congressional representation and Congressional pay, were not adopted. The remaining ten amendments became the Bill of Rights.

Eleven States were necessary for ratification because Vermont became a State during the ratification period. Virginia was the eleventh State and agreed to the amendments on December 15, 1791. There is no record in that decade of action by Connecticut, Georgia or Massachusetts. On March 1, 1792, Secretary Jefferson announced the adoption to the Governors of the States.

The official date of ratification of the Bill of Rights is said to be December 15, 1791.

Below is a copy of the Bill of Rights, along with the seldom seen Preamble to the Bill of Rights, as ratified.

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Signed:

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives

John Adams, Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate

Attest:

John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Sam. A. Otis Secretary of the Senate.

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.

AMENDMENT II: 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.

AMENDMENT III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

AMENDMENT IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches 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.

AMENDMENT V: 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 service in 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 of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

AMENDMENT VI: 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.

AMENDMENT VII: 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 reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

AMENDMENT VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

AMENDMENT IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X: 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.

For insight as to the reasoning for and against the Bill of Rights, see James Madison's discussion of the topic in a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated October 17, 1788.

<http://research.umbc.edu/~bouton/History407/Documents/MadisonOnBillOfRights.htm>

Also see Representative James Madison's address to the House when he presented the proposed Amendments to the Constitution in 1789.

<http://www.ukans.edu/carrie/docs/texts/proposed.html>

Or:

<http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html>

We keep hearing about "zero tolerance" from government officials and in government schools. Well, perhaps it is time We the People ought to demand a little zero tolerance from them.

For instance, they jailed Martha Stewart for lying to an investigator. What about Bill Clinton? There are still a few matters that have not been resolved with the Clinton fiasco yet. Why isn't out and out perjury treated more seriously than lying so some stuffy investigator?

We should have zero tolerance for all political lying -- for all public officials, which are public servants, actually. Turn the law around and imprison a few of them as an example. Clinton would be a good place to start.

We need zero tolerance for all legislators. It is unconscionable for them to vote on a bill they have not read and do not fully understand. That should be cause for instant dismissal. After all, that's their job, their only real job.

There should be zero tolerance for teachers working in any institution receiving any taxpayer funding. All government schools should be required to teach American history and teachers must be required to keep their liberal opinions to themselves, just as they now do with their religion. American history should be taught using the founding documents and the vast store of writings of the Founding Fathers and from no other viewpoint. A generation of voters, all well schooled on the original intent of the Founding Fathers, will go far in changing the federal government back to a Constitutionally operated government.

There should be zero tolerance for dead beat politicians. Liberals like John Glenn have gone years ignoring huge campaign debts. Word on the street now is that John Kerry is doing the same. That is, Kerry is already starting a 2008 campaign but neglecting to pay workers.

We have all heard of the professional basketball rumble in Michigan a couple weeks ago. There should be zero tolerance for athletes attacking fans except, that is, when fans come to the athletes on the playing field. Whatever happened to sportsmanship? In this matter, at least two of the players and two of the "fans" deserve prison time. Else, the young would-be basketball players will think that type of behavior is acceptable. Zero tolerance shows them it is not.

Another U.S. Senator, who is evidently thinking of running for president yet again, suggests zero drug tolerance for baseball players. He has said that Congress would take action against steroid use if major league baseball's owners and unions cannot reach a satisfactory steroid-testing program on their own.

Apparently this senator does not know the law very well. The Anabolic Steroids Control Act makes it a federal felony to distribute steroids for non-medical use. That law classifies steroids as Schedule III controlled substances, like barbiturates and narcotic painkillers.

And, speaking of barbiturates and narcotic painkillers, this same senator's wife was caught stealing large amounts of drugs from an organization she heads and self-medicating herself into addiction. Of course, she is rich and so got off with just a wrist slap. Perhaps some of this drug testing the senator wants should start in his home.

But now that this senator mentions it, perhaps we should randomly test everyone on Capitol Hill monthly for both drugs and alcohol. Zero tolerance works both ways.

Of course, we also need zero tolerance for bribery. There should be a public record for every contact any lobbyist has with any legislator or staff. That record should clearly state what was discussed, how long the meeting lasted and what promises were made by either side. Voters need this information to evaluate the work done in their name.

We also need zero tolerance of those in the media who do not support liberty. Journalists whine like babies about freedom of the press and free speech. Then, they say that some speech is discriminatory and must be limited. Furthermore, they want everyone to support their freedom of the press, then act like the First Amendment gives them powers not available to all other Americans. This is wrong.

Our Second Amendment rights must be defended as aggressively as any other right, including freedom of the press.

Yes, a little zero tolerance might help to cure a few of our political ills after all. Of course, it all depends on how it is applied.

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

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2003 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron329.htm. Revised 12-12-04. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.