The Bill of Rights vs Freedom

By Richard A. Nixon

The Bill of Rights (BofR) was ratified in 1791, two years subsequent to the Constitution (C) in the main. The C granted the legislature power under Article I; specifically Article I, § 8, which is a list of 17 express powers and 1 implied power, the latter, referred to as the “necessary and proper” clause.

James Madison and others insisted that the BofR, the first 8/10 amendments, be added to ensure that the newly formed federal government (FG) knew what it could not do. It must be stated unequivocally that the BofR was intended to apply to the FG only, not to the states.

This is evidenced by the first word of the first amendment, “Congress.” The first amendment in its entirety states, ” 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 of the right of the people, peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Hence, the states had no restrictions placed upon them except that which came from their own respective constitutions and law. The BofR placed no restrictions on the states.

Then along came the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, which were directed at the states. These amendments were ratified in 1865, 1868 and 1870, respectively. The BofR continued to apply to the FG only, not to the states.

However, starting in the 1930’s, the Supreme Court (SC) began to get itchy looking for a way to exercise its authority over the states. You will recall that in 1803, Marbury v. Madison, the SC asserted its authority over Congress, finding acts of Congress unconstitutional, notwithstanding the absence of constitutional authority to do so. It now needed to find a way to control the states as well.

The SC found it in the 14th Amendment Due Process (14A/DP) clause. With a bit of Orwellian logic and legerdemain, voile, the states were now under the thumb of the SC…again with no legitimate constitutional authority.. The 14AD/P states, “…nor shall any State deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”

As understood until the 1930’s, it was required that the states have in place a procedure by which it could take a person’s life, liberty or property. All states had such procedure and hence, it was not an issue. Then the SC decided that it knew better than the people of each state and redefined what procedure was sufficient. 

The SC decided that the BofR, heretofore applied only to the FG, would now apply to the states.The mechanism by which this was done was to apply the words “due process” from the 14AD/P clause. This was created out of whole cloth and dubbed the “incorporation doctrine.”

Again, it must be stated unequivocally that there exists authority, neither express nor by necessary implication, to the effect that the BofR were ever intended to be used as a vehicle to apply the BofR to the states, thereby limiting the states as well as the FG.

Once the SC began applying the BofR to the states, their appetite has been insatiable and continues to the present. Some of the damage wrought by this false and fraudulent doctrine is as follows:

        In 1962, the SC outlawed prayer in school;

        In 1963, the SC outlawed bible reading in public schools;

        In 1967, the SC outlawed a nursery rhyme which did not mention the word “God.” The court held that even though the word God was not contained in the nursery rhyme, if someone were to hear it, it might cause them to think of God and it is therefore unconstitutional; and

        In 1980, the court held that the posting of the Ten Commandments in our public schools was illegal. The court held that “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all it will be to induce the school children to read them, and if they read them they may meditate upon them and perhaps venerate and obey them. This is not a permissible objective.”

This is but a short list of the damage the SC has wrought by applying the BofR to the states. All is not lost however; the matter can be remedied. This is done by defining the 14AD/P clause as it existed in 1868, i.e., the BofR would no longer apply to the states and the states would be free to fashion their own BofR should the people of each state choose to do so.

This freedom is exactly what the Founding Fathers (FF) intended when they ratified the 10th Amendment, which states:   “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.”

It is clear beyond dispute that neither the FF nor the drafters of the 14A ever intended the BofR to apply to the states. Hence, it’s abundantly clear that it was intended that the states have all existing power except that which was given to the FG. This can be done without a C amendment, by utilizing § 5 of the 14th A.

It states: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” With this authority, Congress can redefine the due process clause of the 14th A without a Constitutional amendment and strip the SC of its illegitimate, unauthorized authority over the states and hence the people, as the FF intended…


Richard A. Nixon, Esq. and Author of America-An Illusion of Freedom  (  Find Mr. Nixon on Facebook


Get Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
William "Bill" Hicks

All of this, in a nutshell, comes down to an imbalance of power between the three branches of the government. Congress has found it easier, and personally beneficial, to cede their power(s) to the SC and Exec.

It’s an easy way of allowing the will of the few to affect the will of the many. SO, here we are here today concerned if something is Constitutional, when the Constitution no longer has meaning.