Ideas on Liberties and Freedoms

Op-Ed

Ideas on Liberties and Freedoms

I would like to begin by saying that I believe and understand our nation began with individuals who gathered together to live in a state of peace. I believe that this idea is what gives form, life, and unity to our nation.
Our Constitution was one the first and the most fundamental act of our society wherein provisions were made for the continuation of this Union of various States, bound under the direction, the protection, and bonds of laws.
Ladies and gentlemen, political power is nothing more than those rights which every person has in a state of nature, those being the right to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness, the right to protect oneself, to enjoy the fruits of their labor, rights given by GOD; also every person that lives in our nation has placed certain rights into the hands of the society in which we live, this power is given only to elected officials for the sole purpose that it would be used for the good of our nation and for the preservation of the peoples rights.

This power cannot have anyother purpose than to preserve the lives, liberties, and possesions of the people. It is not an absolute and abritary power over the lives, properties, and fortunes of the citizens.
Those powers which our forefathers gave to the society when they formed this nation can never revert to the individuals again as long as our nation lasts but will always remain with our governments, because without this there can be no communities, no states, no nation nor civil society.
Our elected officials have authority to make laws and to punish those that violate the fundamental rights of our society.

This authority has its origin only from compact and agreement; from the mutual consent of the citizens which comprise our nation.
Ladies and gentlemen, the liberties which we desire in our nation is to be under no other power or laws, nor under the dominion of any persons will or restraints but only those established by our elected officials.

This is the reason people enter into societies, for the preservation of their properties, this is why we choose and authorize legislatures so that there may be laws made and rules set as guards to the properties of all people in society.

By voluntary agreement from the people is what gives political power to those elected officials for the benefit of the people for the sole reason to secure them in the possession and use of their properties.

When power that is put in the hands of elected officials for the government to use for the preservation of their properties and it is applied to other ends, and made use of to harass or subdue the people to the commands of those that have it, then it becomes tyranny, whether those that use it are one or many.

Whereever law ends, tyranny begins, if the laws of our society are disregarded to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force they have under their command to force compliance of the people in ways the law does not allow, they cease to ba a government official and they become a criminal.
If a controversy arises between government and some of the people, in a matter where the law is silent, or doubtful, and the issues be of great importance the proper umpire should be the people.

Where an appeal to the law and judges exists, but a resolution is denied by a perverting of justice or a barefaced disregard of the laws to protect the citizens from the violence then it is hard to imagine any thing but a state of war between the people and those in government which are abusing their powers.

For whenever violence is used whether through the hands of officials appointed to administer justice, it is still violence and injury, however colored with the names or forms of law; wherever this is done, violence is made upon the people and when they have no appeal left on earth to right the injustices, they are left to the only remedy, and that is an appeal to heaven.
When the citizens and injuries to them may be ajudicated, and damages repaired an by appeal to the law, there is no pretext for the use of force which is only to be used when a person is stopped from appealing to the law: for where the citizens of our society are forbidden from seeking a remedy by an appeal to the laws or they are stopped or constrained in some way from such an appeal then I believe that force is acceptable because those denying an appeal to the law are placing themselves against the people, and this makes it lawful and just to resist such actions.

If illegal acts are extended to the people or if some oppression affects only a few, in both cases, as the people are persuaded in their conscience that their laws, their properties, liberties, religion, and lives are in danger I would ask, can we blame them from resisting such a blantant use of illegal force?

In all lawful governments the designation of the persons who are to govern is a natural and necessary part as the form of government itself, and this has its establishment originally from the people. Yet if another begins to exercise of any part of this power by other means than by what the laws have dictated that person has no right to be obeyed since they are not the person the laws have appointed and therefore they are not the person the people have consented to.

When any person that the people has not elected or group take it upon themselves to make laws they make laws that have no authority, laws which the people are not obligated to obey.

Power which is despotical in nature is an absolute power of one man over another to take away the life of another when he pleases. This is a power which our society has not and cannot convey to anyone. When a person attempts to commit acts of injustice on another, regardless of how it is colored by law, that person attempts to be a despot and the people have every right, both by nature and by compact to resist such a person.

Is it better for a society that the people should be exposed to the limitless will of tyrants or that our elected officials be held liable for their actions and be opposed when they grow arrogant and reckless in their use of power and use it for the destruction of and not the preservation of the peoples liberty?
Some would say that this lays a foundation for open rebellion, I believe they mean civil wars and unrest. I ask is it illegal to tell the people that they are absolved of obedience to a government when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties and their properties and that they have the right to resist unlawful violence done to them by those in positions of authority?

I think the same people would also say it is not good for men to resist robbers or murderers because they could cause disorder and violence.
If the citizens of this nation are expected to quietly give all they have for a semblance of peace to those that would violate their rights, what kind of peace is this which consists only of violence, robbery, and oppression?
When those who are placed in a position to protect and preserve the liberties of the people and they decide to use force to molest and to take away the rights, liberties, and properties of the people, that in doing so are putting themselves in a state of war with the people, because they have been placed in a position of trust as protectors; and they are rebelling against the people, these would be the true rebels in our society, the true criminals.
This state of war I am referring to can be summed up in this phrase, " Force without authority ".

When someone begins to use force to invade the rights of either the state or the people, that person is laying a foundation for overturning the Constitution and the frames set forth for a just government. If anyone, whether person, a group, or those acting illegally under the colour of law commits such acts they should be condemned as a enemy of the state and the people and tried by whatever laws are available to present justice to the people.

That person should be answerable for the blood, the desolation, and the violations of law which they have caused.

But the idea that government officials violate the laws and invade the rights of the people is so often denied today that it would seem that those who have been granted the priviledge of governing have the right to break those same laws which they expect others to obey, as if they alone are better than their fellow citizens.

I ask should the people be forbidden from using force to oppose those that are acting against them with force? Self defense is a part of the law of nature and cannot be denied, even when used against the government itself when it infringes upon the rights of the people.

If government has shown an outright hatred toward the people, whether a group or the whole, or has set itself against the nation and begins to tyrannize the people or a considerable part of the citizens then the people have a right to resist and to defend themselves to protect their lives, liberties, and properties, and their religion if it also is attacked.

Those that resist such actions by government should be expected to strike out against the aggressor. When such a state of war exists all forms of respect and reverence for the former government is gone. When a superiortiy in arms is seen the one defending their rights knows one thing, that they have right on their side.

The people have the right to punish the offender for all of the evils that have followed their heinous activities.

I would say also that if a person in government endeavours to overturn our Constitution and our form of government for the purpose to bring ruin on our nation, as such actions have been recorded throughout history, that person forfeits all authority they have been given by the people. They have breached the trust of the people by not preserving and adhering to their oaths which they have sworn to uphold.

Source