What Happened to the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution?

Essentially, those Amendments have disappeared... due to the fact that they both largely are ignored... by elected and appointed national officials, both Republicans and Democrats.  Here's what the Amendments looked liked when once upon a time they were visible---

The Ninth Amendment---

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
..............................................
Notice it doesn't say, certain rights granted in the Constitution; rather, it says certain rights listed in the Constitution.  The Supreme Law of the Land does not grant rights.  It merely enumerates some of them.  So, what are these "others" (other rights)?  There are hundreds of thousands of them.  For example, we as individuals have the right to go to sleep when we so choose... etc., etc., etc.  [If we're at work and choose to exercise that right, there may be dire consequences related to being employed; but nevertheless, that still is our right.]  Those all are Natural Rights; they belong to all individuals at birth.  They are not granted by governments.  Because there are so many Natural Rights, we need a general rule-of-thumb to identify them.  I like this one:  we are free to do whatever we wish, as long as those actions do not infringe on the genuine rights or property of another being.

The 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."
................................................
Notice that any powers the Fed Gov't possesses have been delegated by the Constitution.  Ours is a government commonly referred to as one of Enumerated Powers.  If the power is not listed in the Supreme Law of the Land, then the Feds do not possess it.  This is a relatively simple concept; it's not rocket science.
------------------------------------
If people don't like the Constitution the way it is now, no problem...lobby to get it changed.  There are two, and only two, legal ways to change it--- by Amendment or Constitutional Convention.  Both methods purposely were designed to be difficult.  Frankly, I don't care if the document is changed or even dumped, as long as it's done legally.  The one thing that's not permitted under our system of gov't is ignoring the Supreme Law of the Land.  That document is the very basis of our method of governing.  Politicians should never be allowed to ignore it.  [Years ago, a Congress person stated in an interview:  "Half of what we do is unconstitutional."...the implication was---so what, who cares?]

For decades, both Republicans and Democrats elected to national office largely have ignored all the concepts described above... and yet, we keep electing them.  Something like 58% of Americans don't want either Trump or Clinton as President.  It's way past time for a change.  Boycott all Neoliberals... that means boycott the overwhelming majority of D.C. politicians...and Corporatists in the private sphere.  They have exported jobs & manufacturing, debased the Dollar, supported a global, supranational economic & financial cabal/cartel, eliminated freedoms, promoted war, and generally flushed this great Land down the drain.  Haven't you had enough of Republicans and Democrats yet?

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Gun Control and the Statist Mind

Rather than infringe on law-abiding peoples' rights, the Government should severely punish those who initiate force. But then, that makes too much sense.

The Statist mind believes that it is much better to try and eliminate all possible danger, no matter what the cost to law-abiding folks. The Nanny Syndrome involves a belief that the safety and nourishment of "society" trumps any individual right that gets in the way of that lofty goal. Unalienable individual rights?...forget them if they get in the way. The Constitution?...forget it if it gets in the way. Common law precedence [which was: an individual basically is free to do anything as long as that action does not infringe on the rights or property of others]?...forget it. The "good of society" is the greatest good. Some of us think not; we believe that freedom of the individual is the greatest good---as long as that individual does not initiate force or fraud. [If the person does initiate force or fraud, then legally punish that individual severely; don't take away the rights of law-abiding people.]

Statist thinking is that government must "take care of" people, because the world is dangerous and (most of all) unfair. The cost of trying to make the world "fair" is staggering---loss of individuality, loss of freedom, and loss of income on an unprecedented scale. Government not only taxes us to an unnecessary degree, but often charges an additional fee for its "services".

Society is not an organism...it has no rights; it is made up of individuals who have unalienable rights that have nothing whatsoever to do with any government anywhere. Unalienable rights are not the same as "civil rights"; the latter are granted by statute.

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

Even requirements for gun permits are infringements on the unalienable right to self-defense possessed by law-abiding people. Furthermore, the permit requirement often is economically discriminatory; a permit in some places can cost as much as $150.

A great myth surrounding gun control has spread in this country: that a lack of gun control increases crime. Not true at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

The Supreme Court decision on this issue should prove interesting; it is due sometime between April and July.

Another Tool: Another "Notice"

For the Record: NOTICE to CEASE and DESIST

Demand for truth is made, of all parties or interests, for full disclosure.

NOTICE
From: scott c. haley

To:______________________________


Regarding: ______________________________________ _________________________________________ _____________________________________________________

____________________________________
____________________________________
__________________________, _________


Dear: ___________________________

This is actual notification that by and through this correspondence:

Your items are refused for cause without dishonor, and without recourse to me, and returned herewith because they are irregular, unauthorized, incomplete, and void process.

Your paperwork is incomplete and defective upon its face due to insufficient law.

All paperwork was received but not accepted.

That I, in my sovereign status possessing unalienable rights, have no contractual or other relationship with you that is in dishonor; therefore your vexatious harassment is a foreign private trespass.

Demand is made that you cease and desist. You are in dishonor.


So done by virtue of common law individual superior court, Skagit county, WA:


This ____ day of ___________, two-thousand seven. ____________________________,
_____________________________ ______________

scott c. haley
Expressly Reserving All Rights.

[Address]



Page one of one page

More Practical Sovereignty

Once in awhile an individual or business will receive a "Notice" or a "Notice to Comply" from a governmental agency. Such "Notices" are sometimes not proper or lawful. For example, I once received a Notice to Comply from the Environmental Health Dept. of a rural northern California county, regarding how I handled septic waste on my place (at the time) of thirty-eight acres. Said Notice was entirely improper because the department that issued it had never done an onsite inspection. The "inspector" apparently was too busy, or lazy, and was operating on hearsay knowledge. [When I pointed this out, the "Notice" was deleted from their records, I received an apology, and the department took no further action.]

Even if the Notice received is proper and lawful, it is often helpful to oppose it, thereby delaying a re-inspection or administrative action by the agency. Many times (more often than not) agencies are so backlogged with compliance work that they pick only the low-hanging fruit, so to speak. In any case, it is always good to stand up for your rights when you believe that you've done nothing wrong, or you believe that the ordinance in question is excessive or intrusive.

Below is a Notice that you may copy and use when necessary. Simply change my name to yours and change the county (location of Affiant). One way to demonstrate to an agency (especially local or State) that you do not intend their Notice to go unchallenged is to turn right around and issue THEM a Notice. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. It always buys you time.

Notice and Affirmation

Whereas the Declaration of Independence states with clarity that all individuals are endowed with certain unalienable rights; and,
Whereas the Declaration illustrates that said rights are independent of any government; and,
Whereas I affirm that I possess said unalienable rights, and thus possess individual sovereignty; and,
Whereas in Common Law an individual is free to do whatever one wishes, as long as that individual does not trespass upon the rights or property of another individual and honors all lawful contracts;

Now Therefore:

I refuse your paperwork that alleges violations of law or contract foreign to my venue, which no oath, promise, or common law attaches me thereto.

Your documents were received but not accepted.

All items are refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to me.

Your paperwork is returned herewith because it is irregular, incomplete, and void process.

Further foreign intrusion upon my sovereignty by you or any agent of yours shall result in my charge of $200.00 per hour (or portion thereof) for any time that I must spend responding.

Recovery of charges shall be pursued in de jure common law superior court.

No response from you or your agency/department/entity will be taken as agreement with the statements contained in this Notice and Affirmation, according to de jure common law.

I affirm and attest that, to the best of my knowledge, the above is true and correct. So stated by Affiant: Scott C. Haley, in Skagit County, Washington

(signature)_________________________________
Date _____________

Notice and Affirmation received by:
(print name) _________________________________

(signature)_________________________________
Date ______________

More on Boycotting

This is only my opinion and perhaps many will disagree, but national elections in this country have become truly meaningless. They present us with this choice: a horrible, especially corrupted evil, OR, just a corrupted evil.

I see only two reasonable options left to honorable people:
1. Boycott the Establishment---that can be done minimally, maximally, or anything in-between. (Use your imagination.) One's stage of life plays a big part in how much you're willing to risk.
2. Secession: not as crazy as it sounds. Vermont has a very active secessionist movement currently, with about 64,000 people involved. I've found this site, http://middleburyinstitute.org/ , to be the most responsible and logical of the various secessionist websites.

Armed revolt obviously is out of the question. Any such action would be thoroughly crushed. Pockets of resistance might survive for years, but not enough to matter. Some people are talking about this very action on the web...I think they are very unrealistic.

Only nonviolent civil disobedience will ever change the entrenched DC way of doing things. People have forgotten that being under a government is voluntary, and that we really do have unalienable rights that have nothing at all to do with any government...whatsoever.

There were/are three types of "citizen" (legally) in this country:
1. a citizen of a State of the Union (this is the most important category, Constitutionally);
2. a citizen of "the United States", prior to the 14th Amendment (which really is a different name for number 1 above); and,
3. a citizen of "the United States" per the 14th Amendment (which is clearly different from either of the above, and is one who enjoys "civil" rights---which are granted by Congress).

See: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php

"In drafting the [14th] Amendment, Congress was looking to make its federal laws (the Enforcement Act, the Freedman's Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866) a part of the US Constitution. In doing so they intended to ensure that the freed blacks would have certain privileges and protections remain in place after the United States pulled its army out of the South and restored the Southern states to their previous status as states of the Union. The Amendment would also insure that Congress had the national authority to enforce the provisions of the Amendment upon any state that attempted to violate them."

Civil rights entail allegiance to the Govt; unalienable rights do not. Our present Govt places civil rights ABOVE unalienable rights. Furthermore, it is no longer a representative government; special interests of the Corporatocracy have seen to that.

In general, the Govt of this country is too corrupted to change in any meaningful way... unless it is forced to by nonviolent civil disobedience. (That can be done locally, or individually---it doesn't necessarily mean a massive "March on DC".) Failing that, I see only more of the same in the future. I realize full well that many support the Democrats, and see them as an agent for positive change. I don't; and even after the NeoCons have faded into history, I don't see the Republicans that way either. The movers and shakers of both parties are committed to the Globalist New World Order.

Frankly, having been a serious observer of American politics since 1956, I've concluded that the current dominating corruption of principles by both Democrats and Republicans at the national level will continue until they are both forced out of the American political system. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Government is always best at the local or regional level. Even then it can be a stinker. I'm beginning to believe that we should have stuck with the European model---that is to say, each State being an independent Republic. Of course, the Articles of Confederation would have to be expanded to allow for the military defense of all...meaning, "national" taxes for defense only would have to be implemented.

Naturally, the above will never happen. So we're back to square one. I would like to live long enough to see the time when "citizens" of this great land finally realize that significant, positive change (for peace and Freedom) here will never be the result of voting in national elections. Forty or fifty years ago that was possible, but no longer. The Corporatocracy is firmly entrenched, almost completely out in the open relative to their actions, and has almost absolute control of the voting process---from A to Z.

Boycott the Corporatocracy whenever possible! [EXAMPLES: stop watching the drivel on commercial TV (the major networks already are concerned about losing viewers); stop buying crap made in China; don't patronize Exxon-Mobil stations---the corp has the most obscene profits in the oil industry; stop voting in politicians who spend beyond our means, trample on the 10th Amendment, or believe that it's just too complicated to end the war now; every time you sign ANY Govt form, write "All Rights Reserved", or, "Expressly Reserving All Rights" beneath your name; participate at http://www.downsizeDC.org/ ; whenever possible, buy locally at independent stores---avoid the big chains; etc. Those are ways to boycott at only a minimal level.]